The works of William Chillingworth

^ku)

-^(^

^

^y^^^ /m

m^'i/et^i

o/

?^i

en^^^/y6^i

T

'.o^/^^my y^rw^

(!9cyrri/rrhc/€e^

^.>^Ae C^yt^/^ '^CH/.^l^^i

^y6/ny

y^ Oyu/^.

^^ny^A^j

K)

i^ ^^AoMm^ r^A^e-.^y^rJ^^eA^a^ //^^ M9/C^

\h

>^^

THE,

WORKS

J>F,

WILLIAM CHILLINGWORTH, M. A.

IN THREE VOLUMES. p

VOL. I.

Rex arbitratur, renitn absolute necessariarum ad salutem non magnum esse numerum. Quare
existimat ejus majestas, nuUam ad ineundam concordiam breviorem viam fore, quam si
diligenter separentur necessaria a non necessariis, et ut in necessariis conveniat, omnia
opera insumatur : in non necessariis libertati Christianse locus detur. Simpliciter neces-
saria Rex appellat, quse vel expresse verbum Dei prsecipit credenda faciendave, vel ex verbo

Dei necessaria consequentia vetus ecclesia elicuit. Si ad decidendas hodiernas contro-

versias hsec distinctio adhiberetur, et jus divinum a positive seu ecclesiastico candide
separaretur ; non videtur de iis quae sunt absolute necessaria, inter pios et moderatos viros,
longa aut acris contentio futura. Nam et pauca ilia sunt, ut modo dicebamus, et fere ex
eequo omnibus probantur, qui se Christianos dici postulant. Atque istam distinctionem
Sereniss. Rex tanti putat esse niomenti ad minuendas controversias, quae hodie Ecclesiam
Dei tantopere exercent, ut omnium pacis studiosorum judicet officium esse, diligentissime
hanc explicare, docere, urgere.

Isaac. Casaubon. in Epist. ad Card. Perron. Regis Jacobi nomine scripta.

OXFORD,

AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

MDCCCXXXVIII.

,A

■'^

TO
THE MOST HIGH AND MIGHTY PRINCE,

CHARLES,

BY THE GRACE OF GOD,

KING OF GREAT BRITAIN, FRANCE, AND IRELAND,
DEFENDER OF THE FAITH, &c.

May it please your Most Excellent Majesty,

JL PRESENT, with all humility, to your most sacred iiands,
a defence of that cause, which is and ought to be infinitely
dearer to you, than all the world ; not doubting but upon this
dedication I shall be censured for a double boldness, both for
undertaking so great a work, so far beyond my weak abilities ;
and again, for presenting it to such a patron, whose judgment
I ought to fear more than any adversary. But for the first, it
is a satisfaction to myself, and may be to others, that I was not
drawn to it out of any vain opinion of myself, (whose personal
defects are the only thing which I presume to know,) but un-
dertook it in obedience to him who said, Tu converses confirma
JratreSy not to St. Peter only, but to all men : being en-
couraged also to it by the goodness of the cause, which is able
to make a weak man strong. To the belief hereof I was not
led partially, or by chance, as many are, by the prejudice and
prepossession of their country, education, and such like induce-
ments ; which if they lead to truth in one place, perhaps lead
to error in a hundred ; but having with the greatest equality
and indifferency, made inquiry and search into the grounds on
both sides, I was willing to impart to others that satisfaction
which was given to myself. For my inscribing to it your Ma-
jesty's sacred name, I should labour much in my excuse of it
from high presumption, had it not some appearance of title to

a2

iv THE EPISTLE DEDICATORY.

your Majesty's patronage and protection, as being a defence of
that book, which by special order from your Majesty was
written some years since, chiefly for the general good, but per-
adventure not without some aim at the recovery of one of your
meanest subjects from a dangerous deviation ; and so due unto
your Majesty, as the fruit of your own high humihty and most
royal charity. Besides, it is in a manner nothing else but a
pursuance of, and a superstruction upon that blessed doctrine,
wherewith I have adorned and armed the frontispiece of my
book, which was so earnestly recommended by your royal
father of happy memory, to all the lovers of truth and peace ;
that is, to all that were like himself, as the only hopeful means
of healing the breaches of Christendom, whereof the enemy of
souls makes such pestilent advantage. The lustre of this bless-
ed doctrine I have here endeavoured to uncloud and unveil,
and to free it from those mists and fumes which have been
raised to obscure it, by one of that order ^, which envenoms
even poison itself, and makes the Roman religion much more
malignant and turbulent than otherwise it would be: whose
very rule and doctrine obliges them to make all men, as much
as lies in them, subjects unto kings, and servants unto Christ,
no further than it shall please the pope. So that whether your
Majesty be considered, either as a pious son towards your
royal father king James, or as a tender-hearted and compas-
sionate son towards your distressed mother the catholic
church, or as a king of your subjects, or as a servant unto
Christ, this work (to which I can give no other commendation,
but that it was intended to do you service in all these capacities)
may pretend, not unreasonably, to your gracious acceptance.
Lastly, being a defence of that whole church and religion you
profess, it could not be so proper to any patron as to the great
defender of it ; which style your Majesty hath ever so exactly
made good, both in securing it from all dangers, and in vindi-
cating it (by the well-ordering and rectifying this church)

a by that order — Oxf.

THE EPISTLE DEDICATORY. v

from all the foul aspersions both of domestic and foreign
enemies, of which they can have no ground, but ^their own
want of judgment or want of charity. But it is an argument
of a despairing and lost cause, to support itself with these im-
petuous outcries and clamours, the faint refuges of those that
want better arguments ; like that stoic in Lucian, that cried
o) Kardpare ! O damned villain ! when he could say nothing
else. Neither is it credible the wiser sort of them should be-
lieve this their own horrid assertion, that a God of goodness
should damn to eternal torments those that love Him and love
truth, for errors which they fall into through human frailty !
But this they must say, otherwise their only great argument
from their damning us, and our not being so peremptory in
damning them, because we hope unaffected ignorance may ex-
cuse them, would be lost : and therefore they are engaged to
act on this tragical part, to fright the simple and ignorant, as
we do little children, by telling them that bites, which we
would not have them meddle with. And truly that herein they
do but act a part, and know themselves to do so, and deal
with us here, as they do with the king of Spain at Rome,
whom they accurse and excommunicate for fashion-sake on
Maundy-Thursday, for detaining part of St. Peter's patrimony,
and absolve him without satisfaction on Good-Friday; me-
thinks their faltering and inconstancy herein makes it very ap-
parent : for though for the most part they speak nothing but
thunder and lightning to us, and damn us all without mercy
or exception ; yet sometimes, to serve other purposes, they can
be content to speak to us in a milder strain, and tell us, as my
adversary does more than once, " that they allow protestants
as much charity as protestants allow them.'' Neither is this
the only contradiction which I have discovered in this un-
charitable work ; but have shewed that, by forgetting himself,
and retracting most of the principal grounds he builds upon,
he hath saved me the labour of a confutation ; which yet I

^ their own malice — Oxf,
a3

vi THE EPISTLE DEDICATORY.

have not in any place found any such labour or difficulty, but
that it was undertakable by a man of very mean, that is, of my
abilities. And the reason is, because it is truth I plead for,
which is so strong an argument for itself, that it needs only
light to discover it ; whereas it concerns falsehood and error to
use disguise and shadowings, and all the fetches of art and so-
phistry ; and therefore it stands in need of abler men to give
that a colour at least vphich hath no real body to subsist by.
If my endeavours in this kind may contribute any thing to
this discovery, and the making plain that truth, (which my
charity persuades me the most part of them disaffect, only be-
cause it hath not been well represented to them,) I have the
fruit of my labour and my wish, who desire to live to no other
end than to do service to God's church, and your most sacred
Majesty, in the quality of

Your Majesty's most faithful subject,

and most humble, and devoted servant,

W. CHILLINGWORTH,

PREFACE TO THE NINTH EDITION.

1 HE repeated complaints in public print, as well as in pri-
vate conversation, of the very blameable incorrectness of most
of the foregoing editions of this work, having made an exact
and careful review of the whole absolutely necessary ; it is
thought proper to give an account in few words, what has
been done to this purpose in the edition now before the reader.

The book was first published at Oxford in the year 1638 ;
and meeting with an extraordinary reception at its first appear-
ance, was printed some months after at London in the same
year. This second impression has received some alterations,
very probably from the hand of the author, he being then alive.
The third edition, which was published in 1664, seems to be
the last that was printed with any degree of care; there
being in it some small corrections, which appear to have been
made on purpose, and are not impertinent, though there is no
account given upon what authority they were made. The
succeeding impressions have no alterations but what were made
for the worse by the carelessness of the printers.

From the three first, therefore, this edition has been pre-
pared. The edition of 1664 has been followed in the present,
which has been carefully examined and compared with the
other two ; and the various readings of these editions are taken
notice of at the bottom of each page, with the words Oxf. or
Lond. after them. As for such readers as think these minute
remarks unnecessary or immaterial, they may please to ob-
serve, they are so contrived, as neither to disturb the sense,
nor increase the bulk or price of the book. And those who
are desirous to see this work as complete and perfect as may be,
may conclude, from these nice corrections, which they will see
interspersed every where through the book, that the whole has
been collated with all possible application, and that no pains
or industry has been wanting to do justice to a work so truly
valuable.

The book of Charity Maintained hy Catliolics has been also

a4

viii PREFACE TO THE NINTH EDITION.

compared with like diligence with the first edition pubUshed
by Mr. Knott himself ; it being plain from the sincere and
generous temper of Mr. Chillingworth, that his desire and en-
deavour was, that his adversary might be used with all candour
and fair deahng, and that his arguments might be set in a
proper light.

And lastly, the Sermons and Additional Discourses are
printed from the best editions of those pieces; the former,
from that printed in 1684; the latter, from that in 1688, which
was the first time these last were made public.

Upon the whole, as it has been intrusted to an experienced
and careful hand to correct the sheets from the press, who has
used a more than ordinary application on his part, it is hoped
that, abating a very few typographical errors, which the best
performances from the press are not without, the reader will
here meet with what the undertaker proposed, a genuine, cor-
rect, and beautiful edition of the works of Mr. Chillingworth.

It remains only to take notice of two letters, said to be writ-
ten by Mr. Chillingworth, which having been bound up with
many books of the last impression of this work, it may be ex-
pected either that they should be added to this edition, or some
reason given why they are left out. The truth is, if we look
upon those letters in the most advantageous light imaginable,
they appear only to be pieces which the writer never intended
for the press, and perhaps would not have taken kindly that
they should have been made public : since the way of exposing
a man's private letters after his death, is by many thought not
agreeable to the strict rules of honour, and too near skin (akin) to
the ungentleman-like practice of overlooking private papers in a
man's study, without the leave of the owner : besides that these
letters were so far from being countenanced by any name of
reputation, that they were then published by an anonymous
person.

They seem to impute to our author inconstancy in religion,
from which charge, when he was threatened with it by the
Jesuit, he amply and honourably justified himself in the fifth
section of his own preface to this book. Neither can the doubts
of so impartial and honest an inquirer after truth, give greater
credit to the Unitarian than to the Roman Catholic doctrine,
of which latter religion it is notorious he once professed himself.

ADVERTISEMENT TO THE TENTH EDITION. ix

The annexed subscription to the XXXIX. Articles of Re-
ligion of the Church of England, which is dated after one of
the letters there published, (and nothing can be said to the
other, which has no date at all,) added to Mr. Chillingworth's
known reputation for veracity and Christian sincerity, is an
abundant evidence, that upon motives of conscience only, he
joined as heartily with our church in disowning the Unitarian
principles, as in condemning the errors of the church of Rome.

Extract from the Register of the Church of Salisbury.
" Ego Gulielmus Chillingworth, Clericus, in Artibus Ma-
gister, ad cancellariatum ecclesiae cathedralis beatae Mariae, Sa-
rum, una cum praebenda de Brinsworth alias Bricklesworth in
comitatu Northampton, Petriburgensis dicecesews, in eadem
ecclesia fundata, et eidem cancellariatui annexa, admittendus,
et instituendus, omnibus hisce Articulis et singulis in eisdem
contentis volens et ex animo subscribo, et consensu m meum
praebeo, 20° die Julii, 1638.

" Gulielmus Chillingworth."

That is, in English,
" I William Chillingworth, Clerk, M. A. to be admitted to
the chancellorship of the cathedral church of Sarum^ &c. do
willingly and heartily subscribe these Articles, and every thing
contained in them, and do give my consent thereto.

" William Chillingworth."

ADVERTISEMENT TO THE TENTH EDITION.

IN this edition we have now first added the Life of our
celebrated Author, carefully collected from the best authorities,
with a history of the controversies he was engaged in, by the
Rev. Mr. Birch. His letters, which have hitherto been im-
properly omitted, are inserted : so that we can now assure the
reader, he has a complete collection of Mr. Chillingworth's
Works.

September 1, 1742.

Advertisement to the present Edition.

IN this edition a few errors which had crept into the ninth
and tenth have been rectified by means of the first, which has
been examined for this purpose ; and the tract entituled An
Answer to some Passages in RushwortKs Dialogues^ in
vol. iii. has been collated with the Author''s MS. in the Bod-
leian Library, and considerably enlarged.

Dec. 7. 1837.

CONTENTS OF VOL. I.

THE Life of Mr. William Chillingworth Page xiii

The Preface to the Author of Charity Maintained : with an
Answer to his pamphlet, entitled, A Direction to N. N.... i

The Author of Charity Maintained, his Preface to the
Reader 4.2,

The Answer to the Preface 5^

THE FIRST PART.

Chap. I. The state of the question ; with a summary of the
reasons for which, among men of different religions, one
side only can be saved 93

Answer I. Shewing, that the adversary grants the former
question, and proposeth a new one; and that there is no
reason why, among men of different opinions and com-
munions, one side only can be saved 102

Chap. II. What is that means whereby the revealed truths
of God are conveyed to our understanding, and which
must determine controversies in faith and religion 12,6

Answer II. Concerning the means whereby the revealed
truths of God are conveyed to our understanding; and
which must determine controversies in faith and reli-
gion "^'^57

Chap. III. That the distinction of points fundamental and
not fundamental is neither pertinent nor true in our present

xii THE CONTENTS.

controversy; and that the cathoHc visible church cannot
err in either kind of the said points 281

Answer III. Wherein is maintained, that the distinction
between points fundamental and not fundamental is in this
present controversy good and pertinent: and that the ca-
thoUc church may err in the latter kind of the said
points 312

THE LIFE

OF

MR. WILLIAM CHILLINGWORTH.

Mr. William Chillingworth was son of Wil-
liam Chillingworth, citizen, and afterwards mayor of
Oxford, and was born in St. Martins parish in that
city, in October 1602, and on the last of that month
received baptism there ^. William Laud, afterwards
archbishop of Canterbury, and then fellow of St. John's
college, and master of arts^ was his godfather*^. He
became a scholar of Trinity college under the tuition
of Mr. Robert Skinner, on the 2nd of June, 1618, being
then about two years standing in the university**.
June the 28th, 1620, he took the degree of bachelor of
arts% and March the l6th, 1623-4, that of master ^
and June the 10th, 1628, became fellow of his college^.
"He was then," says Mr. Wood^ "observed to be no
drudge at his study, but being a man of great parts
would do much in a little time, when he settled to it."
He did not confine his studies to divinity, but applied
himself with great success to mathematics ; and what

a Wood, Athen. Oxon. vol. 2. e Id. Fasti Oxon. vol. i. col.

col. 40. 2nd edit. Lond. 1 7 2 1 . 215.

^ Diary of Archbishop Laud, * Id. ibid. col. 226.

published by Mr. H. Wharton, S Wood, Athen. Oxon. vol. 2.

p. I, 2. col. 40.

c Wood, ubi supra, col. 42. ^ Ibid.

^ Id. col. 40.

xiv THE LIFE OF

shews the extent of his genius, he was esteemed likewise
a good poet, in which capacity he is mentioned by sir
John Suckling in his Sessions of the Poets*. His inti-
mate friends were sir Lucius Carey, afterwards lord
viscount Falkland ; Mr. John Hales of Eton, &c. ; but
more particularly Mr. Gilbert Sheldon, who succeeded
Dr. Juxon in the see of Canterbury^. The study and
conversation of the university scholars at that time
turned chiefly upon the controversies between the
church of England and that of Rome ; and the great
liberty, which had been allowed the popish missionaries
in the end of the reign of king James I. being continued
under king Charles I. upon the account of his marriage
with Henrietta, daughter to Henry IV. of France ^ there
was among them a famous Jesuit, who went under the
name of John Fisher, though his true name was John
Perse, or Percey"^, and was very busy in making con-
verts, particularly at Oxford ; and attacking Mr. Chil-
lingworth upon the necessity of an infallible living
judge in matters of faith, the latter forsook the com-
munion of the church of England, and with an incre-
dible satisfaction of mind embraced the Romish re-
ligion", and soon after wrote the following letter to his
friend Mr. Gilbert Sheldon » :

" Good Mr. Sheldon,
" Partly mine own necessities and fears, and partly
charity to some others, have drawn me out of London

i Fragmenta aurea. A collec- ™ See Bibliotheca Scriptorum

tion of all the incomparable Societatis Jesu : a Nathaniele

pieces written by sir John Suck- Sotvello ejusdem Societatis

ling, p. 7. edit. London 1646. Presbytero, p. 487, 488. edit.

k Des Maizeaux's Historical Romae 1676.

and Critical Account of the Life ^ Wood, Athen. Oxon. vol.

and Writings of William Chil- 2. col. 40,

lingworth, p. 3. edit. London o Des Maizeaux, ubi supra,

1725, in octavo. p. 7.

1 Id. ibid.

MR. WILLIAM CHILLINGWORTH. xv

into the country. One particular cause, and not the
least, was the news of your sickness, which had I found
it had continued with you with any danger, no danger
of my own should have kept ine from you. I am very
glad to hear of your recovery, but sorry that your oc-
casions do draw you so suddenly to London. But, I
pray, leave a direction with Charles Green where you
may be spoke with, and how I may send to you ; and
you shall very shortly hear further from me. Mean-
while let me entreat you to consider most seriously of
these two queries :

'' 1 . Whether it be not evident from scripture and
Fathers and reason, from the goodness of God, and
the necessity of mankind, that there must be some one
church infallible in matters of faith ?

" 2. Whether there be any other society of men in
the world, besides the church of Rome, that either can
upon good warrant, or indeed at all, challenge to itself
the privilege of infallibility in matter of faith ?

" When you have applied your most attentive con-
sideration upon these questions, I do assure myself
your resolution will be affirmative in the first, and ne-
gative in the second. And then the conclusion will be,
that you will approve and follow the way wherein I
have had the happiness to enter before you ; and
should think it infinitely increased, if it would please
God to draw you after.

'* I rest your assured friend, &c."

Mr. Fisher, in order to secure his conquest, persuaded
Mr. Chillingworth to go over to the college of the
Jesuits at Doway ; and the latter was desired to set
down in writing the motives or reasons which had en-
gaged him to embrace the Romish religion. But Dr.
William Laud, then bishop of London, hearing of this

xvi THE LIFE OF

affair, and being extremely concerned at it, wrote to
him ; and Mr. Chillingworth's answer expressing a
great deal of moderation, candour, and impartiality,
that prelate continued to correspond with him, pressing
him with several arguments against the doctrine and
practice of the Romanists. This set Mr. Chillingworth
upon a new inquiry, which had the desired effect. But
the place where he was not being suitable to the state
of a free impartial inquirer, he resolved to come back
to England, and left Doway in 1631, after a short stay
there P. Upon his return to England, he was received
with great kindness and affection by bishop Laud, who
approved of his design of retiring to Oxford, (of which
that prelate was then chancellor,) in order to complete
the important work in which he was engaged, a free
inquiry into religion. At last, after a thorough exa-
mination, the protestant principles appearing to him the
most agreeable to the holy scripture and reason, he de-
clared for them ; and about the year 1634 wrote a con-
futation of the motives which had induced him to go
over to the church of Rome. This paper is now lost.
It is true, we have a paper of his on the same subject,
first published in 1 687, in the Additional Discourses of
Mr. Chillingworth ; but it seems to be written upon
some other occasion, probably at the desire of some of
his friends^'.

As in his forsaking the church of England, as well
as in his return to it, he was solely influenced by a
sincere love of truth, so he constantly persevered in
that excellent temper of mind ; and even after his re-
turn to protestantism, he made no scruple to examine
the grounds of it, as appears by a letter of his to Dr.

P Id. ibid. p. 9. See likewise 227. and Wood, Athen. Oxon.

The History of the Troubles and vol. 2. col. 40.
Tryal of William Laud, &c. pub- 4 Des Maizeaux, ubi supra,

lished by Mr. H. Wharton, p. p. 13 — 17.

MR. WILLIAM CHILLINGWORTH. xvii

Sheldon, ^'containing some scruples he had about
leaving the church of Rome, and returning to the
church of England." These scruples, which he freely
declared to his friends, seem to be the occasion of a
groundless report, that he had turned papist a second
time, and then protestant again ^

His returning to the protestant religion making a
great deal of noise, he was engaged in several disputes
with those of the Romish religion, and particularly
with Mr. John Lewgar, Mr. John Floyd, a Jesuit,
who went under the name of Daniel, or Dan. a Jesu %
and Mr. White, author of the Dialogues published
under the name of Rushworth, with whom, at the de-
sire of lord George Digby, afterwards earl of Bristol,
he had a conference at the lodgings of sir Kenelm
Digby, a late convert to the church of Rome*. But in
1635 he was engaged in a work, which gave him a far
greater opportunity to confute the principles of that
church, and to vindicate the protestant religion, upon
the following occasion. A Jesuit, who went by the name
of Edward Knott, though his true name was Matthias
Wilson", had published in 1630, in octavo, a little book,
called, "Charity Mistaken, with the Want whereof Ca-
tholickes are unjustly charged, for affirming, as they do
with Grief, that Protestancy unrepented destroys Sal-
vation." This was answered by Dr. Christopher Potter,
provost of Queen's college in Oxford ; and his answer
came out in 1633, with this title; "Want ofCharitie
justly charged on all such Romanists, as dare (without
Truth or Modesty) affirme, that Protestancie destroyeth
Salvation. In Answer to a late Popish Pamphlet, in-

^ Id. ibid. p. 1 8. and remark and sir Kenelm Digby, knt. con-

QF.] cerning Religion, p. 84, 85. edit.

s Id. ibid. p. 39,40. London 1651.

t Id. p. 40 — 43. and Letters ^ Bibliotheca Patrum Socie-

between the Lord George Digby, tatis Jesu, p. 1 85.

CHILLINGWORTH, VOL. I. b

xviii THE LIFE OF

tituled, Charity Mistaken, &c." The Jesuit replied in
1634 under this title; **Mercy and Truth, or Charity
maintayned by Catholiques. By way of Reply upon an
Answere lately framed by D. Potter to a Treatise, which
had formerly proved, that Charity was Mistaken by
Protestants ; with the Want whereof Catholiques are
unjustly charged for affirming, that Protestancy unre-
pented destroys Salvation. Divided into two Parts."
Mr. Chillingworth undertaking to answer that Reply,
and Mr. Knott being informed of his design, resolved
to prejudice the public both against our author and his
book, in a libel, entitled, "A Direction to be observed by
N.N. if hee meane to proceede in answering the Booke,
entitled, Mercy and Truth, or Charity maintained by Ca-
tholickes, &c. printed in 1636, in 8vo. pp. 42. Permissu
superiorumr In this piece he represents Mr. Chilling-
worth as a Socinian ; whose answer was very near
finished in the beginning of the year 1637 ; and having
been examined, at archbishop Laud's request, by Dr.
John Prideaux, afterwards bishop of Worcester, Dr.
Richard Baylie, Vice-Chancellor of the university of
Oxford, and Dr. Samuel Fell, lady Margaret's professor
of divinity, it was published with their approbation in
the latter end of that year, with this title; "The Re-
ligion of Protestants a safe Way to Salvation : or an
Answer to a Booke, intituled, Mercy and Truth, or
Charity maintained by Catholiques. Which pretends to
prove the contrary. By William Chillingworth, Mas-
ter of Arts of the University of Oxford." This book
was received with a general applause ; and, what per-
haps never happened to any other controversial work
of that bulk, two editions were published within less
than five months. On the other hand, Mr. Knott seeing
that he had not been able to deter our author from
publishing his answer, tried once more to prejudice the

MR. WILLIAM CHILLINGWORTH. xix

public against it ; wherein he was seconded by some
Jesuits. For in 1638, Mr. Knott published a pam-
phlet, entitled, "Christianity Maintained; or, A Dis-
covery of Sundry Doctrines tending to the Overthrow
of the Christian Religion, contained in the Answere to a
Book, intituled, Mercy and Truth ; or. Charity main-
tained by Catholiques ; printed at St. Omer's, in 4to,
pp. 86." In this piece ^ he promises a larger volume in
answer to Mr. Chillingworth. To this pamphlet is
subjoined a little piece under the title of "Motives Main-
tained ; or, A Reply unto Mr. Chillingworth's Answere
to his owne Motives of his Conversion to the Catholicke
Religion." The next pamphlet against our author was
likewise printed at StOmer's in 1638, in 4to, pp. 193,
with this title ; "The Church Conquerant over Human
Wit ; or. The Churches Authority demonstrated by
Mr. William Chillingworth (the Proctour for wit against
her) his perpetual Contradictions in his Book, intituled.
The Religion of Protestants a safe Way to Salvation."
The author was a Jesuit, called John Floyd, who in
1639 published likewise another piece in 4to, pp. 104,
entitled, "The Totall Summe ; or. No Danger of Dam-
nation unto Rom a Catholiques for any Errours in
Faith; nor any Hope of Salvation for any Sectary
whatsoever that doth knowingly oppose the Doctrine of
the Roman Church. This is proved by the Confessions
and Saying of Mr. Chillingworth his Booke." The third
pamphlet which appeared against Mr. Chillingworth
was printed in 1639, most probably at St. Omer's, in 4to,
pp. 158, and entitled, "The Judgment of an University-
Man concerning Mr. William Chillingworth his late
Pamphlet, in Answere to Charity Maintayned." It was
written by Mr. William Lacy, a Jesuit. To this piece is
subjoined another, entitled, '' Heautomachia. Mr. Chil-
w Preface, p. 1 1 .
b 2

XX THE LIFE OF

lingworth against himself." pp. 46. It hath no title-page
nor preface, being the sequel of the other, and printed
at the same time. The style is also the same. In
1652, nine years after our author's death, Mr. Knott
published a large answer to him, entitled, " Infidelity
Unmasked : or. The Confutation of a Booke published
by Mr. William Chillingworth, under this title. The
Religion of Protestants a safe Way to Salvation ;"
printed at Ghent, in 4to, pp. 949, besides the Preface
and Index.

While Mr. Chillingworth was employed in the ex-
cellent work above mentioned, he wrote a letter to one
of his friends, who had desired to know what judg-
ment might be made of Arianism from the sense of anti-
quity ; it is without date ; and the cover being lost, it
doth not appear to whom it was written. The original
is in the library of the Royal Society, and is as follows:

" Dear Harry,

** I am very sorry it was my ill fortune not to see
thee the day that I went out of Oxford, otherwise I
should have thanked thee very heartily for the favour
thou didst the night before, especially for Mr. Coven-
try's company and discourse, whose excellent wit I
do very much admire ; and had I so much interest in
him as you have, I should desire him often (though I
hope I need not) to remember what our Saviour says. To
whom much is given, of them much shall he required,

" Mr. Taylor did much confirm my opinion of his
sufficiency ; but let me tell you in your ear, methinks
he wants much of the ethical part of a discourser, and
slights too much many times the arguments of those he
discourses with. But this is a fault he would quickly
leave, if he had a friend that would discreetly tell him
of it. If you or Mr. Coventry would tell him that

MR. WILLIAM CHILLINGWORTH. xxi

you heard one, that knows him, magnify him exceed-
ingly for other things, but censure him for this, you
might do him a very friendly office ; and my writing to
you thus much gives you ground enough to say so
truly. But you must not give the least suspicion that
I am the man, and therefore not do it yet a good
while.

" When Dr. Sheldon comes to Oxford, I will be there
again, and then will be very ready to do any service in
the business you imparted to me.

" I was mistaken in my directing you to Eusebius
for the matter you wrote of. You shall find it in a
witness much further from exception herein than Eu-
sebius, even Athanasius himself, the greatest adversary
of that doctrine, and Hilary, who was his second. See
the first in Ep. de Synodis Arim. et Seleuc, p. 917 D.
tom. 1. edit. Paris. 1627. See the second De Synodis y
fol.97. In the first you shall find, that the eighty
Fathers, which condemned Samosatenus, affirmed ex-
pressly, that ' the Son is not of the same essence of the
Father;' which is to contradict formally the coun-
cil of Nice, which decreed ' the Son coessential to the
Father.' In the second you shall find these words to
the same purpose, Octoginta episcopi olim respuerunt
TO homousioji. See also, if you please, Justin, cont.
Tryph. p. 283, 356, 357; Tertull. against Praxeas,
c. 9 ; Novatian, T)e Trinit. in fine^ who is joined with
Tertullian ; Athanas. Ep. de Fide Dion. Alex. t.
1. p. 551 ; Basil, t. 2. p. 802, 803, edit. Paris, 1618.
See St. Hierom, Apol. 2, cont. Ruffinum, t. 2. p. 329-
Paris, 1579. See Petavius upon Epiph. his Panar. ad
Hcer. 69, quce est Arii, p. 285 ; and consider how well
he clears Lucian the martyr from Arianism, and what
he there confesses of all the ancient Fathers.

" If you could understand French, I would refer

b 3

xxii THE LIFE OF

to Perron, p. 633, of his Reply to King James, where
you should find these words : ' If a man should demand
of an Arian, if he would submit to the judgment of the
church of the ages precedent to that of Constantine
and Mercian, he would make no difficulty of it, but
would press himself, that the controversy might be
decided by that little which remains to us of the au-
thors of that time. For an Arian would find in Ire-
nseus, Tertullian, and others, which remain of those
ages, that the Son is the instrument of the Father;
that the Father commanded the Son in the works of
creation; that the Father and the Son are aliud et
aliud: which things he that should now hold, now
when the language of the church is more examined,
would be esteemed a very Arian.'

" If you read Bellarmine touching this matter, you
should find, that he is troubled exceedingly to find
any tolerable glosses for the speeches of the Fathers
before the council of Nice, which are against him ;
and yet he conceals the strongest of them ; and to
counterpoise them, cites authors that have indeed an-
cient names, but such, whom he himself has stigma-
tized for spurious or doubtful, in his book, De Script.
Eccles.

a Were I at leisure, and had a little longer time,
I could refer you to some, that acknowledge Origen's
judgment to be also against them in this matter.
And Fisher, in his Answer to Dr. White's Nine Ques-
tions^, has a place almost parallel to that above cited
out of Perron.

'* In a word, whosoever shall freely and impartially

consider of this thing, and how on the other side the

ancient Fathers' weapons against the Arians are in a

manner only places of scripture, (and those now for

^ P. io6, 107.

MR. WILLIAM CHILLINGWORTH. xxiii

the most part discarded as impertinent and uncon-
cluding,) and how in the argument drawn from the
authority of the ancient Fathers, they are almost al-
ways defendants, and scarce ever opponents ; he shall
not choose but confess, or at least be very inclinable
to believe, that the doctrine of Arius is either a truth,
or at least no damnable heresy.

" But the carrier stays for my letter, and I have
now no more time than to add, that I am thy very
true and loving friend, &c.

" See Facundus Hermianensis, lib. 10. c. 15. Re-
member always the words of our Saviour, If you ivill
do the will of my Father^ you shall know of the doc-
trine, whether it he of God,

"If you can, send me Mr. Diggs's speech. I prithee
go to Dr. Littleton, and desire him to send me all that
he has of Vorstius. For in the epistles of his, which
I borrowed of him, he refers me to some other books
of his, which I shall have especial occasion to use ;
especially his book agaist Pistorius the Jesuit."

In the year 1635, sir Thomas Coventry, lord keeper
of the great seal, offering Mr. Chillingworth some
preferment, he refused to accept it on account of his
scruples with regard to the subscription to the Thirty-
nine Articles of the Church of England^; and wrote a
letter upon this subject to Dr. Sheldon. Mr. Des Mai-
zeaux observes''', that he had two transcripts of it, one
of which (that hath a postscript) was communicated
to him by Dr. White Kennet, lord bishop of Peter-
borough, to which, and to the copy of the other letter
of Mr. Chillingworth, upon his going over to the Ro-
mish religion, his lordship had subjoined the follow-
ing memorandum : " To the copies of these two letters
to Mr. Gilbert Sheldon and Dr. Sheldon, Mr. Wharton,
y DesMaizeaux, iibi supra, p. 58, &c. ^ p. 86.

b 4

xxiv THE LIFE OF

who procured the transcripts, gave this attestation
under his own hand : Ex autographis Uteris penes
Danielem Sheldon armigerum, archiepiscopi nepotem.'^
It is dated from ^Tew, Septemb. 21, 1635, and directed
** To the right worshipful, and his much honoure^i
friend Dr. Sheldon," and is as follows, with the various
readings of the other transcript, communicated to Mr.
Des Maizeaux, noted in the margin.

" Good Dr. Sheldon,

" I do here send you news, as unto my best friend,
of a great and happy victory, which at length, with
extreme difficulty, I have scarcely obtained over the
only enemy that can hurt me, that is, myself.

" Sir, so it is, that though I am in debt to yourself
and others of my friends above twenty pounds more
than I know how to pay ; though I am in want of
many conveniences ; though in great danger of falling
into a chronical infirmity of my body ; though in an-
other thing, which you perhaps guess at what it is,
but I will not tell you, which would make me more
joyful of preferment than all these, (if I could come
honestly ^by it,) though money comes to me from my
father's purse like blood from his veins, or from his
heart ; though I am very sensible, that I have been
too long already an unprofitable burden to my lord,
and must not still continue so ; though my refusing
preferment may perhaps (which fear, I assure you,
does much afflict me) be injurious to my friends and
intimate acquaintance, and prejudicial to them in the
way of theirs ; though conscience of my own good
2 intention and desire suggests unto me many flattering

^ to 2 intentions and desires

a In Oxfordshire, the seat of Lucius, lord viscount Falkland.

MR. WILLIAM CHILLINGWORTH. xxv

hopes of great ^possibility of doing God and his church
service, if I had that preferment which I may fairly
hope for ; though I may justly fear, that by refusing
those preferments which I sought for, I shall gain
the reputation of weakness and levity, and incur their
displeasure, whose good opinion of me, next to God's
favour, and my own good opinion of myself, I do esteem
and desire above all things : though all these, and
many other terrihiles visii Jhrmce, have represented
themselves to my imagination in the most hideous
manner that may be ; yet I am at length firmly and
unmovably resolved, if I can have no preferment with-
out subscription, that I neither can nor will have any.
" For this resolution I have but one reason against
a thousand temptations to the contrary ; but it is ev
/uLcya, against which if all the little reasons in the
world were put in the balance, they would be lighter
than vanity. In brief, this it is : as long as I keep
that modest and humble assurance of God's love and
favour, which I now enjoy, and wherein I hope I shall
be daily more and more confirmed ; so long, in despite
of all the world, I may and shall and will be happy.
But if I once lose this, though all the world should
conspire to make me happy, I shall and must be
extremely miserable. Now this inestimable jewel, if I
subscribe, (without such a declaration as will make^
the subscription no subscription,) I shall wittingly and
willingly and deliberately throw away. For though I
am very well persuaded of you and my other friends,
who do so with a full persuasion that you may do it
lawfully ; yet the case stands so with me, and I can
see no remedy but for ever it will do so, that if I sub-
scribe, I subscribe my own damnation. For though I
do verily believe the church of England a true member
•^ possibilities "^ as makes

xxvi THE LIFE OF

of the church ; that she wants nothing necessary to
salvation, and holds nothing repugnant to it ; and had
thought, that to think so had sufficiently qualified me
for a subscription : yet now I plainly see, if I will not
juggle with my conscience, and play with God Al-
mighty, I must forbear.

" For to say nothing of other things, which I have
so well considered, as not to be in a state to sign them,
and yet not so well as to declare myself against them ;
two points there are wherein I am fully resolved, and
therefore care not who knows my mind. One is, that
to say the fourth commandment is a law of God ap-
pertaining to Christians, is false and unlawful. The
other, that the damning sentences in St. Athanasius's
Creed (as we are made to subscribe it) are most false,
and also in a high degree presumptuous and schisma-
tical. And therefore I can neither subscribe, Hhat these
things are ' agreeable to the word of God,' seeing I
believe they are certainly repugnant to it ; nor that
the whole * Common Prayer is lawful to be used,' see-
ing I believe these parts of it certainly unlawful ; nor
promise, that ' I myself will use it,' seeing I never in-
tend either to read these things, which ^I have now
excepted against, or to say ^ Amen' to them.

" I shall not need to entreat you not to be offended
with me for this my most honest, and (as I very believe)
most wise resolution ; hoping rather you will do your
endeavour, that I may neither be honest at so dear a
rate as the loss of preferment, nor buy preferment at
so much dearer a rate^ the loss of honesty.

" I think myself happy, that it pleased God, when I

was resolved to venture upon a subscription without

full assurance of the lawfulness of it, to cast in my

way two unexpected impediments to divert me from

1 to these things as agreeable 2 I now have

MR. WILLIAM CHILLINGWORTH. xxvii

accomplishing my resolution. For I profess unto you,
since I entertained it, I have never enjoyed quiet day
nor night, till now that I have rid myself of it again.
And I plainly perceive, that if I had swallowed this
pill, howsoever gilded over with glosses and reserva-
tions, and wrapt up in conserves of good intentions and
purposes, yet it would never have agreed nor stayed
with me, but I would have cast it up again, and with
it whatsoever preferment I should have gained with it
as the wages of unrighteousness ; which would have
been a great injury to you and to my lord keeper.
Whereas now res est Integra ; and he will not lose the
gift of any preferment by bestowing it on me, nor have
any engagement to Mr. Andrews for me.

" But ^however this would have succeeded, in case
I had then subscribed, I thank God I am now so re-
solved, that I will never do that while I am living and
in health, which I would not do if I were dying ; and
this I am sure I would not do. I would never do any
thing for preferment, which I would not do but for
preferment ; and this, I am sure, I should not do. I
will ^ never undervalue the happiness, which God's
love brings to me with it, as to put it to the least ad-
venture in the world, for the gaining of any worldly
happiness. I remember very well, Qucerite primum
regnum Dei, et ccstera omnia adjicientur tibi: and
therefore hvhenever I make such a preposterous choice,
I will give you leave to think I am out of my wits, or
do not believe in God, or at least am so unreasonable
as to do a thing, in hope I shall be sorry for it after-
wards, and wish it undone.

"It cannot be avoided, but my lord of Canterbury
must come to know this my resolution ; and, I think,
the sooner the better. Let me entreat you to acquaint
1 howsoever ^ never so ^ whensoever

xxviii THE LIFE OF

him with it, (if you think it expedient,) and let me
hear from you as soon as possibly you can. But when
you write, I pray remember, that my foregoing prefer-
ment (in this^ state wherein I am) is grief enough to
me; and do not you add to it, by being angry with
me for doing that which I must do, or be miserable.
" I am your most loving and true servant, &c.

" So much of my defence of Dr. Potter as I have
done, I intend to review and perfect before I proceed,
and, if it shall be thought fit, to publish it, annexing a
discourse to this effect, that if this be answered, all the
rest is so ; which by the strict dependance of that
which follows on that which goes before, I shall be
able very easily to demonstrate.

" Direct your letters to me at my father's house in
Oxford, and it will be sufficient.

" I am sorry to hear that Mr. Craven continues ill
still. I fear he is in more danger than he imagines.
Pray, if you can see him, send me word how he does."

Dr. Sheldon's answer to this letter of Mr. Chilling-
worth has not yet been discovered ; but by a paper
containing the heads or hints of another answer of his
to our author, it appears that there passed several
letters between them on that subject ; some for greater
secresy, written in a third person. For Mr. Chilling-
worth being intent upon a full inquiry into the sense
of the Articles, every new examination afforded him
new scruples. Dr. Sheldon's paper is as follows ^ :

" God forbid I should persuade any to do against
his conscience : be it in itself good or bad, it must be
a sin to lie.

1 being in this
« Des Maizeaux, ubi supra, p. 103, 104.

MR. WILLIAM CHILLINGWORTH. xxix

" It was in a third person ; else I would not have
told you what I did.

" I must deal plainly with you, I am much afraid it
will ruin you here, and not advantage you at the last day.

" I put not the title of conscience upon an humour
of contradiction.

" Accord'mg] if not against, for it is according to
scripture, that the church hath power to establish ce-
remony or doctrine, if occasion require, not against the
scripture.

" The end of these general forms of peace, if capable
of any construction, lies against the papists.

" No evangelical counsels, as the papists', such as
presuppose a fulfilling of the law, and going beyond it,
to satisfy and merit for us, that's according to scrip-
ture. In this sense the article condemns them. Con-
sider it well.

" No such offering of Christ in the scripture, where
you will find it once offered for all : in that manner
they did it, against whom the article was framed ;
taken with all aggravating circumstances of corporal
presence, as if another satisfaction for sin : the conse-
quences, which may be drawn from transubstantiation,
amount to little less than blasphemy.

" Works done by bare nature are not meritorious
de congruo : nature of sin they must have, if sin be in
them ; and so it is, for malum ex qualibet causa. Un-
less a downright Pelagian, you may give it a fair and
safe and true interpretation.

" Upon these reasons, I presume, did that reverend
prelate Andrews and that learned Mountague subscribe,
when they publicly taught evangelical counsels in
their writings. W^hat you have sent to me in a third
person, &c. Be not forward, nor possessed with a
spirit of contradiction. Thus you may "

XXX THE LIFE OF

However at last Mr. Chillingworth surmounted his
scruples ; and being promoted to the chancellorship of
the church of Sarum, July the 20th, 1638, with the
prebend of Brixworth in Northamptonshire annexed
to it, he complied with the usual subscription.

About the same time he was appointed master of
Wigstan's hospital in Leicester; "both which," says
Mr. Wood ^, " and perhaps other preferments, he kept
to his dying day." In 1640, he was deputed by the
chapter of Salisbury for their proctor in convocation.
In 1642, he was put into the roll with some others by
his majesty to be created doctor of divinity ; but he
came not to take that degree, nor was he diplomated ^.
At the siege of Glocester, begun August the 10th,
1643, he was in the king's army before that city; and
observing that they wanted materials to carry on the
siege, he suggested the making of some engines after
the manner of the Roman testudines cum pluteis, in
order to storm the place ^\ That siege being raised by
the earl of Essex, and the war continuing with great
vigour on each side, the king appointed the lord Hopton
general of his troops in the west, who forced Arundel
castle in Sussex to surrender : but that castle was re-
taken by sir William Waller, and Mr. Chillingworth
among the rest made prisoner of war, who out of re-
spect to my lord Hopton, " had accompanied him in
that march, and being indisposed by the terrible cold-
ness of the season, chose to repose himself in that gar-
rison till the weather should mend*." Mr. Chilling-
worth's illness increased to such a degree, that not
being able to go to London with the garrison, he was

f Athen. Oxon. vol. 2. col. 42. torn. 4. p. 288, 289.

g Id. Fasti Oxon. vol. 2. col. i Clarendon, History of the

30. Rebellion, b. 8. torn. 4. p. 472,

h Rushworth, Histor. Collect. 473. [p. 457. vol. 4. Oxf. edit,

vol. 2. part 3. ad ann. 1643. 1826.]

MR. WILLIAM CHILLINGWORTH. xxxi

conveyed to Chichester ; which favour he obtained at
the request of his great adversary, Mr. Francis Chey-
nell, a bigoted presbyterian divine, who accidentally
met him in Arundel castle, and frequently visited him
at Chichester till he died. He hath given us an ac-
count of our author's sickness, and his own behaviour
towards him, in a book printed at London 1644, in
4to, entitled,*^ Chilli ngwoflki novissima, or the Sickness,
Heresy, Death, and Burial of William Chillingworth,
(in his own phrase,) Clerk of Oxford, and in the Con-
ceit of his Fellow-souldiers the Queen's Arch-engineer
and Grand Intelligencer ; set forth in a Letter to his
eminent and learned Friends : a Relation of his Ap-
prehension at Arundel ; a Discovery of his Errours in a
briefe Catechisme ; and a short Oration at the Buriall
of his hereticall Book. By Francis Cheynell, late Fellow
of Merton Colledge. Published by Authority." Mr. Chil-
lingworth died about January 30th, 1643-4, and was
interred in the cathedral of Chichester.

Besides his works printed in this volume, he wrote
several other pieces, not yet published, which were
among the manuscripts of Mr. Henry Wharton, bought
by Dr. Tenison, archbishop of Canterbury, and pre-
sented to the Lambeth library ; some of which have
been mentioned above. I shall give an account of
them all from the catalogue of those manuscripts
drawn up by Mr. Wharton himself, who observes ^,
that the volume marked M. is Volumen Chartaceum
in fol., containing " a collection of papers formerly be-
longing to Archbishop Laud, many of them wrote with
his own hand, but most of them endorsed with his
hand ; together with some papers of the Archbishops

^ Catalogus MSS. Hen. Wharton, in Biblioth. Lambeth, ad
vol. M.

xxxii THE LIFE OF

Sheldon and Bancroft, and many of Mr.Chillingworth."
And after having set down part of the contents of that
vohime, he adds, "Several papers of Mr. William Chil-
lingworth," viz. :

^ 1. Mr.Peake's Five Questions proposed to Mr. Chil-
ling worth about the Nature of Faith, and the Resolu-
tion and Consequence of the Faith of Protestants.

2. Mr. Chillingworth's Answer to Mr. Peake's Ques-
tions : first draught imperfect.

3. Mr. Chillingworth's answer to the same, being
complete and perfect.

4. The beginning of a Treatise against the Scots,
by Mr.Chillingworth.

5. Passages extracted out of the Declarations of the
Scots, by Mr.Chillingworth.

6. Observations upon the Scottish Declaration, by
Mr. Chillingworth.

7. A Treatise of the Unlawfulness of resisting the
lawful Prince, although most impious, tyrannical, and
idolatrous, by Mr. Chillingvvorth.

8. A Letter of Mr. Chillingworth excusing his writ-
ing against the rebels ^\

9. Notes of Mr. Chillingworth concerning God's uni-
versal Mercy in calling Men to Repentance.

10. A problematical Tentamen of Mr. Chillingworth
against punishing Crimes with Death in Christian So-
cieties " : cancelled.

11. A Letter of Mr. J. to Mr. Chillingworth, of the
Imperfection of Natural Religion and Reason, without
the Assistance of Revelation : wrote 1637.

1 [Copies of these papers were *" Printed in Mr. Des Mai-

made for the use of this edition ; zeaux's Life of Mr. Chilling-

but upon examination they did worth, p. 300.
not appear sufficiently finished n This paragraph is razed out

to justify their being given to in the catalogue. []See vol. 3.

the public] P- 435-

MR. WILLIAM CHILLINGWORTH. xxxiii

12. A short Discourse of the Nature of Faith, by-
Mr. Chillingworth.

13. A larger Discourse of the Nature of Faith, by-
Mr. Chillingworth.

14. Of the Absurdity- of departing from the Church
of England, for want of Succession of visible Profes-
sors in all Ages, by Mr. Chillingworth.

15. A brief Answer to several Texts of Scripture
alleged to prove the Church to be one, visible, univer-
sal, perpetual, and infallible, by Mr. Chillingworth.

16. A Letter of Dr. Sheldon to Mr. Chillingworth,
to satisfy his Scruples about subscribing".

17. Letter of Mr. Chillingworth to Dr. Sheldon,
containing some Scruples about leaving the Church of
Rome, and returning to the Church of England.

18. Letter of Mr. Chillingworth to Dr. Sheldon,
containing his Scruples about Subscription, and the
Reason of them**.

Archbishop TillotsonP styles our author incompa-
rable, and the glory of Ms age and nation; and Mr.
Locke recommends the reading of his Religion of Pro-
testants in several of his works ; and particularly in a
piece containing some Thoughts concerning Reading
and Study for a Gentleman ^ wherein, after having ob-
served that the art of speaking well consists chiefly in
two things, viz. perspicuity and right reasoning, and
proposed Dr. Tillotson as a pattern for the attainment
of the art of speaking clearly, he adds ; " Besides per-
spicuity, there must be also right reasoning, without
which perspicuity serves but to expose the speaker.

»* This paragraph is razed out Barker, vol. 12. Sermon 6. on

in the catalogue. Hebr. xi. 6. p. 167, 168.

o This letter hath been in- q A Collection of several

serted above. Pieces of Mr. John Locke, never

P Sermons on various occa- before printed, or not extant in

sions, published by Dr. Ralph his Works, p. 234, 235.

CHILLINGWORTH, VOL. I. C

xxxiv LIFE OF MR. W. CHILLINGWORTH.

And for attaining of this I should propose the constant
reading of Chillingworth, who by his example will
teach both perspicuity and the way of right reasoning,
better than any book that I know ; and therefore will
deserve to be read upon that account over and over
again ; not to say any thing of his argument."

THE PREFACE

THE

PRE FACE

TO THE AUTHOR OF

CHARITY MAINTAINED

WITH AN

ANSWER TO HIS PAMPHLET,

ENTITLED

A DIRECTION TO N.N.

Sir,

U PON the first news of the publication of your book,
I used all diligence with speed to procure it ; and
came with such a mind to the reading of it, as St.
Austin, before he was a settled catholic, brought to
his conference with Faustus the Manichee. For, as
he thought that if any thing more than ordinary
might be said in defence of the Manichean doctrine,
Faustus was the man from whom it was to be expected,
so my persuasion concerning you was. Si Pergama
dextra defendi possunt, certe hac defensa videho. For
I conceived, that among the champions of the Roman
church the English in reason must be the best, or
equal to the best, as being by most expert masters
trained up purposely for this war, and perpetually
practised in it. Among the English, I saw the Jesuits
would yield the first place to none ; and men so wise
in their generation as the Jesuits were, if they had
any Achilles among them, I presumed, would make
choice of him for this service. And besides, I had

CHILLINGWORTH, VOL. I. B

2 "Preface to the Author of Charity Maintained,

good assurance, that in the framing of this building,
though you were the only architect, yet you wanted not
the assistance of many diligent hands to bring you in
choice materials towards it ; nor of many careful and
watchful eyes to correct the errors of your work, if any
should chance to escape you. Great reason therefore
had I to expect great matters from you, and that your
book should have in it the spirit and elixir of all that
can be said in defence of your church and doctrine ;
and to assure myself, that if my resolution not to be-
lieve it were not built upon the rock of evident grounds
and reasons, but only upon some sandy and deceitful
appearances, now the wind and storm and floods were
coming, which would undoubtedly overthrow it.

2. Neither truly were you more willing to effect
such an alteration in me, than I was to have it effected.
For my desire is to go the right way to eternal hap-
piness. But whether this way lie on the right hand,
or the left, or straight forward ; whether it be by fol-
lowing a living guide, or by seeking my direction in a
book, or by hearkening to the secret whisper of some
private spirit, to me it is indifferent. And he that is
otherwise affected, and hath not a traveller's indifference,
which Epictetus requires in all that would find the
truth, but much desires, in respect of his ease, or plea-
sure, or profit, or advancement, or satisfaction of friends,
or any human consideration, that one way should be
true rather than another ; it is odds but he will take
his desire that it should be so, for an assurance that it
is so. But I, for my part, unless I deceive myself, was,
and still am so affected, as I have made profession, not
willing, I confess, to take any thing upon trust, and to
believe it without asking myself why ; no, nor able to
command myself (were I never so willing) to follow,
like a sheep, every shepherd that should take upon

fTith an Answer to /lis Direction to A\ A\ 8

him to guide me ; or every flock that should chance
to go before me : but most apt and most willing to be
led by reason to any way, or from it, and always sub-
mitting all other reasons to this one — God hath said so,
therefore it is true. Nor yet was I so unreasonable, as
to expect mathematical demonstrations from you in
matters plainly incapable of them, such as are to be be-
lieved, and, if we speak properly, cannot be known;
such therefore I expected not. For, as he is an un-
reasonable master, who requires a stronger assent to
his conclusions than his arguments deserve ; so I con-
ceive him a froward and undisciplined scholar, who
desires stronger arguments for a conclusion than the
matter will bear. But, had you represented to my
understanding such reasons of your doctrine, as, being
weighed in an even balance, held by an even hand, with
those on the other side, would have turned the scale,
and have made your religion more credible than the
contrary ; certainly I should have despised the shame
of one more alteration, and with both mine arms, and
with all my heart, most readily have embraced it : such
was my expectation from you, and such my prepara-
tion, which I brought with me to the reading of your
book.

S. Would you know now what the event was, what
effect was wrought in me, by the perusal and considera-
tion of it? To deal truly and ingenuously with you, I fell
somewhat in my good opinion both of your sufficiency
and sincerity, but was exceedingly confirmed in my ill
opinion of the cause maintained by you. I found every
where snares that might entrap, and colours that might
deceive the simple ; but nothing that might persuade, and
very little that might move an understanding man, and
one that can discern between discourse and sophistry :
in short, I was verily persuaded, that I plainly saw,

B 2

4 Preface to the Author of Charity Maintained,

and could make it appear to all dispassionate and un-
prejudicate judges, that a vein of sophistry and calumny-
did run clean through it from the beginning to the end.
And letting some friends understand so much, I suf-
fered myself to be persuaded by them, that it would not
be either unproper for me, or unacceptable to God, nor
perad venture altogether unserviceable to his church,
nor justly offensive to you, (if you indeed were a lover
of truth, and not a maintainer of a faction,) if setting
aside the second part, which was in a manner wholly
employed in particular disputes, repetitions, and refer-
ences, and in wranglings with Dr. Potter about the
sense of some supernumerary quotations, and whereon
the main question no way depends ; I would make a
fair and ingenuous answer to the first, wherein the sub-
stance of the present controversy is confessedly con-
tained ; and which if it were clearly answered, no man
would desire any other answer to the second. This
therefore I undertook with a full resolution to be an
adversary to your errors, but a friend and servant to
your person : and so much the more a friend to your
person, by how much the severer and more rigid adver-
sary I was to your errors.

4. In this work my conscience bears me witness,
that I have, according to your advice, " proceeded always
with this consideration, that I am to give a most strict
account of every line and word that passeth under my
pen :" and therefore have been precisely careful, for the
matter of my book, to defend truth only, and only by
truth : and then scrupulously fearful of scandalizing
you or any man with the manner of handling it.
From this rule, sure I am, I have not willingly swerved
in either part of it ; and, that I might not do it igno-
rantly, I have not only myself examined mine own
work, (perhaps with more severity than I have done

With an Answer to his Direction to N. N, 5

yours, as conceiving it a base and unchristian thing to
go about to satisfy others with what I myself am not
fully satisfied,) but have also made it pass the fiery
trial of the exact censures of many understanding
judges, always heartily wishing that you yourself had
been of the quorum. But they who did undergo this
burden, as they wanted not a sufficiency to discover
any heterodox doctrine, so I am sure they have been
very careful to let nothing slip dissonant from truth,
or from the authorized doctrine of the church of Eng-
land : and therefore whatsoever causeless and ground-
less jealousy any man may entertain concerning my
person, yet my book, I presume, in reason and common
equity, should be free from them ; wherein I hope, that
little or nothing hath escaped so many eyes, which
being weighed in the balance of the sanctuary will be
found too light : and in this hope I am much confirmed
by your strange carriage of yourself in this whole
business. For though by some crooked and sinister
arts you have got my answer into your hands, now a
year since and upwards, as I have been assured by
some that profess to know it% and those of your own
party ; though you could not want every day fair op-
portunities of sending to me, and acquainting me with
any exceptions which you conceived might be justly
taken to it, or any part of it ; (than which nothing
could have been more welcome to me;) yet hitherto
you have not been pleased to acquaint me with any
one : nay more, though you have been at sundry times,
and by several ways, entreated and solicited, nay press-
ed and importuned by me, to join with me in a private
discussion of the controversy between us, before the
publication of my Answer, (because I was extremely un-
willing to publish any thing which had not passed all

^ some that know it. O.r/'.
B 3

6 Preface to the Author of Charity Maintained,

manner of trials ; as desiring, not that I, or my side,
but that truth might overcome, on which side soever it
was,) though I have protested to you, and set it under
my hand, (which protestation by God's help I would
have made good,) if you, or any other, who would un-
dertake your cause, would give me a fair meeting, and
choose out of your whole book any one argument
whereof you was most confident, and by which you
would be content the rest should be judged of, and
make it appear that I had not, or could not answer it,
that I would desist from the work which I had under-
taken, and answer none at all : though by all the arts
which possibly I could devise, I have provoked you to
such a trial ; and in particular by assuring you, that
if you refused it, the world should be informed of your
tergiversation ; notwithstanding all this, you have
perpetually and obstinately declined it ; which to my
understanding is a very evident sign, that there is not
any truth in your cause, nor (which is impossible there
should be) strength in your arguments ; especially con-
sidering what our Saviour hath told us, Every one that
doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light,
lest his deeds should be reproved; hut he that doeth
truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may he made
manifest, that they are wrought in God,

5. In the meanwhile, though you despaired of com-
passing your desire this honest way, yet you have not
omitted to tempt me, by base and unworthy consider-
ations, to desert the cause which I had undertaken ;
Jetting me understand from you, by an acquaintance
common to us both, how that " in case my work should
come to light, my inconstancy in religion" (so you mis-
call my constancy in following that way to heaven,
which for the present seems to me the most probable)
" should be to my great shame painted to the life ;"

U^ith an Answer to his Direction to N, N. 7

that " my own writings should be produced against my-
self; that I should be urged to answer my own motives
against protestantism; and that such things should be
published to the world touching my belief" (for my
painter I must expect should have great skill in perspec-
tive) "of the doctrine of the Trinity, the Deity of our
Saviour, and all supernatural verities, as should en-
danger all my benefices, present and future:" that " this
warning was given me not out of fear of what I could
say (for that catholics, if they might wish any ill, would
beg the publication of my book, for respects obvious
enough) ; but out of a mere charitable desire of my
good and reputation :" and that " all this was said upon
a supposition that I was answering or had a mind to an-
swer Charity Maintained ; if not, no harm was done." To
which courteous premonition, as I remember, I desired
the gentleman who dealt between us to return this
answer, or to this effect : That I believed the doctrine
of the Trinity, the Deity of our Saviour, and all other
supernatural verities revealed in scripture, as truly and
as heartily as yourself, or any man ; and therefore
herein your charity was very much mistaken ; but
much more, and more uncharitably, in conceiving me
a man that was to be wrought upon with these terri-
biles visu Jbrmw, those carnal and base fears which
you presented to me ; which were very proper motives
for the Devil and his instruments to tempt poor-spirited
men out of the way of conscience and honesty, but very
incongruous, either for teachers of truth to make use
of, or for lovers of truth (in which company I had been
long agone matriculated) to hearken to with any regard.
But if you were indeed desirous that I should not answer
Charity Maintained, one way there was, and but one,
whereby you might obtain your desire ; and that was,
by letting me know when and where I might attend

B 4

8 Preface to the Author of Charity Maintained,

you ; and by a fair conference, to be written down on
both sides, convincing mine understanding (who was
resolved not to be a recusant if I were convicted) that
any one part of it, any one argument in it, which was
of moment and consequence, and whereon the cause
depends, was indeed unanswerable. This was the ef-
fect of my answer, which I am well assured was de-
livered : but reply from you I received none but this,
that you would have no conference with me but in
print : and soon after finding me of proof against all
these batteries, and thereby, I fear, very much enraged,
you took up the resolution of the furious goddess in the
poet, madded with the unsuccessfulness of her malice,
Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo !

6. For certainly, those indign contumelies, that mass
of portentous and execrable calumnies, wherewith in
your pamphlet of Directions to N. N. you have loaded
not only my person in particular, but all the learned
and moderate divines of the church of England, and all
protestants in general, nay, all wise men of all religions
but your own, could not proceed from any other foun-
tain.

7. To begin with the last : you stick not, in the be-
ginning of your first chapter, to fasten the imputation
of atheism and irreligion upon all wise and gallant men
that are not of your own religion. In which uncharit-
able and unchristian judgment, void of all colour
or shadow of probability, I know yet by experience,
that very many of the bigots of your faction are par-
takers with you. God forbid I should think the like
of you ! yet if I should say, that in your religion there
want not some temptations unto, and some principles of
irreligion and atheism, I am sure I could make my as-
sertion much more probable than you have done or can
make this horrible imputation.

With an Answer to his Direction to N. N, 9

8. For to pass by, first, that which experience justi-
fies, that where and when your religion hath most ab-
solutely commanded, there and then atheism hath most
abounded. To say nothing, secondly, of your notorious
and confessed forging of so many false miracles, and so
many lying legends, which is not unlikely to make
suspicious men to question the truth of all ; nor to ob-
ject to you, thirdly, the abundance of your weak and
silly ceremonies, and ridiculous observances in your
religion ; which, in all probability, cannot but beget
secret contempt and scorn of it in wise and considering
men ; and consequently atheism and impiety, if they
have this persuasion settled in them, (which is too rife
among you, and which you account a piece of wisdom
and gallantry,) that if they be not of your religion,
they were as good be of none at all : nor to trouble you,
fourthly, with this, that a great part of your doctrine,
especially in the points contested, makes apparently for
the temporal ends of the teachers of it ; which yet, I
fear, is a great scandal to many heaux esprits among
you : only I should desire you to consider attentively,
when you conclude so often from the differences of pro-
testants, that they have no certainty of any part of
their religion, no not of those points wherein they
agree ; whether you do not that which so magisterially
you direct me not to do, that is, proceed " a destructive
way, and object arguments against your adversaries,
which tend to the overthrow of all religion ?" And
whether, as you argue thus, " Protestants differ in many
things, therefore they have no certainty of any thing ;"
so an atheist or sceptic may not conclude as well.
Christians and the professors of all religions differ in
many things, therefore they have no certainty in any
thing. Again, I should desire you to tell me ingenu-
ously, whether it be not too probable, that your por-

10 Preface to the Author of Charity Maintained,

tentous doctrine of transubstantiation, joined with your
forementioned persuasion of " No Papists, no Chris-
tians," hath brought a great many others, as well as
himself, to Averroes his resolution, Quandoquidem
Christiani adorant quod cornedunt, sit anima mea cum
philosophis f Whether your requiring men, upon only
probable and prudential motives, to yield a most certain
assent unto things in human reason impossible ; and
telling them, as you do too often, that they were as
good not believe at all, as believe with any lower* de-
gree of faith, be not a likely way to make considering
men scorn your religion, (and consequently all, if they
know no other,) as requiring things contradictory, and
impossible to be performed ? Lastly, whether your pre-
tence, that there is no good ground to believe scripture,
but your church's infallibility, joined with your pre-
tending no ground for this but some texts of scripture,
be not a fair way to make them that understand them-
selves believe neither church nor scripture ?

9. Your calumnies against protestants in general are
set down in these words, chap. ii. §. 2. " The very doc-
trine of protestants, if it be followed closely, and with
coherence to itself, must of necessity induce Socinianism.
This I say confidently ; and evidently prove, by in-
stancing in one error, which may well be termed the
capital and mother heresy, from which all other must
follow at ease ; I mean their heresy in affirming that
the perpetual visible church of Christ, descended by a
never-interrupted succession from our Saviour to this
day, is not infallible in all that it proposeth to be be-
lieved as revealed truths. For if the infallibility of
such a public authority be once impeached, what re-
mains, but that every man is given over to his own
wit and discourse ? And talk not here of holy scripture :
for if the true church may err, in defining what scrip-

With an Ansiver to his Direction to N, N. 11

tures be canonical, or in delivering the sense and mean-
ing thereof; we are still devolved, either upon the pri-
vate spirit, (a foolery now exploded out of England,
which finally leaving every man to his own conceits
ends in Socinianism,) or else upon natural wit and judg-
ment, for examining and determining what scriptures
contain true or false doctrine, and, in that respect, ought
to be received or rejected. And, indeed, take away the
authority of God's church, no man can be assured that
any one book, or parcel of scripture, was written by
Divine inspiration ; or that all the contents are infal-
libly true ; which are the direct errors of Socinians.
If it were but for this reason alone, no man, who re-
gards the eternal salvation of his soul, would live or
die in protestancy, from which so vast absurdities as
these of the Socinians must inevitably follow. And it
ought to be an unspeakable comfort to all us catholics,
while we consider, that none can deny the infallible
authority of our church, but jointly he must be left to
his own wit and ways ; must abandon all infused faith
and true religion, if he do but understand himself
aright." In all which discourse, the only true word
you speak is, " This I say confidently :" as for "proving
evidently," that I believe you reserved for some other
opportunity : for the present, I am sure you have been
very sparing of it.

10. You say, indeed, confidently enough, that "the de-
nial of the church's infallibility is the mother heresy, from
which all other must follow at ease :" which is so far
from being a necessary truth, as you make it, that it is
indeed a manifest falsehood. Neither is it possible for
the wit of man, by any good, or so much as probable
consequence, from the denial of the church's infallibility,
to deduce any one of the ancient heresies, or any one
error of the Socinians, which are the heresies here en-

12 Preface to the Author of Charity Maintained,

treated of. For who would not laugh at him that
should argue thus : Neither the church of Rome nor
any other church is infallible ; ergo, the doctrine of
Arius, Pelagius, Eutyches, Nestorius, Photinus, Mani-
chaeus, was true doctrine ? On the other side it may be
truly said, and justified by very good and effectual rea-
son, that he that affirms with you the pope's infalli-
bility, puts himself into his hands and power, to be led
by him, at his ease and pleasure, into all heresy, and
even to hell itself ; and cannot with reason say, (so long
as he is constant to his grounds,) Domine, cur ita
facts ? but must believe white to be black, and black
to be white ; virtue to be vice, and vice to be virtue ;
nay, (which is an horrible, but a most certain truth,)
Christ to be antichrist, and antichrist to be Christ, if
it be possible for the pope to say so : which, I say, and
will maintain, however you daub and disguise it, is in-
deed to make men apostatize from Christ to his pre-
tended vicar, but real enemy. For that name, and no
better, (if we may speak truth without offence,) I presume
he deserves, who under pretence of interpreting the law
of Christ (which authority, without any word of ex-
press warrant, he has taken upon himself) doth in
many parts evacuate and dissolve it: so dethroning
Christ from his dominion over men's consciences, and
instead of Christ, setting up himself; inasmuch as he
that requires that his interpretations of any law should
be obeyed as true and genuine, seem they to men's un-
derstandings never so dissonant and discordant from it,
(as the bishop of Rome does,) requires indeed that his
interpretations should be the laws ; and he that is
firmly prepared in mind to believe and receive all such
interpretations without judging of them, and though
to his private judgment they seem unreasonable, is in-
deed congruously disposed to hold adultery a venial

with an Ansiver to his Direction to N, N. 13

sin, and fornication no sin, whensoever the pope and
his adherents shall so declare. And whatsoever he
may plead yet either wittingly or ignorantly, he makes
the law and the lawmaker both stales, and obeys only
the interpreter. As if I should pretend that I should
submit to the laws of the king of England, but should
indeed resolve to obey them in that sense which the
king of France should put upon them, whatsoever it
were ; I presume every understanding man would say,
that I did indeed obey the king of France, and not the
king of England. If I should pretend to believe the
Bible, but that I would understand it according to the
sense which the chief mufti should put upon it ; who
would not say that I were a Christian in pretence only,
but indeed a Mahumetan ?

11. Nor will it be to purpose for you to pretend that
the precepts of Christ are so plain, that it cannot be
feared that any pope should ever go about to dissolve
them, and pretend to be a Christian : for not to say,
that you now pretend the contrary ; to wit, " that the
law of Christ is obscure even in things necessary to be
believed and done ;" and by saying so, have made a fair
way for any foul interpretation of any part of it : cer-
tainly, that which the church of Rome hath already
done in this kind is an evident argument, that (if once
she had this power unquestioned, and made expedite
and ready for use, by being contracted to the pope) she
may do what she pleaseth with it. Who that had
lived in the primitive church would not have thought
it as utterly improbable, that ever they should have
brought in the worship of images, and picturing of
God, as now it is that they should legitimate fornica-
tion ? Why may we not think, they may in time take
away the whole communion from the laity, as well as
they have taken away half of it? Why may we not

14

Preface to the Author of Charity Maintained,

think, that any text and any sense may not be accorded
as well as the whole fourteenth chapter of the First
Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians is reconciled to
the Latin service ? How is it possible any thing should
be plainer forbidden than the worship of angels in the
Epistle to the Colossians ? than the teaching for doc-
trines men's commands in the Gospel of St. Mark ?
And therefore seeing we see these things done, which
hardly any man would have believed that had not seen
them, why should we not fear, that this unlimited
power may not be used hereafter with as little mo-
deration, seeing devices have been invented how men
may worship images without idolatry, and kill in-
nocent men, under pretence of heresy, without mur-
der? Who knows not, that some tricks may not be
hereafter devised, by which lying with other men's
wives shall be no adultery, taking away other men's
goods no theft ? I conclude therefore, that if Solomon
himself were here, and were to determine the dif-
ference, which is more likely to be mother of all
heresy, the denial of the church's, or the affirming of
the pope's infallibility, that he would certainly say,
T'his is the mother, give her the child.

12. You say again confidently, that " if this infalli-
bility be once impeached, every man is given over to
his own wit and discourse:" which, if you mean dis-
course not guiding itself by scripture, but only by prin-
ciples of nature, or perhaps by prejudices and popular
errors, and drawing consequences not by rule, but
chance, is by no means true : if you mean by discourse,
right reason grounded on Divine revelation, and com-
mon notions written by God in the hearts of all men,
and deducing, according to the never-failing rules of
logic, consequent deductions from them ; if this be it
which you mean by discourse, it is very meet and rea-

With an Answer to his Direction to N. N. 15

sonable and necessary, that men, as in all their actions,
so especially in that of greatest importance, the choice
of their way to happiness, should be left unto it ; and
he that follows this in all his opinions and actions,
and does not only seem to do so, follows always God ;
whereas he that followeth a company of men, may oft-
times follow a company of beasts : and in saying this,
I say no more than St. John to all Christians in these
words ; Dearly beloved, believe not every spirit ; but
try the spirits, whether they be of God, or no. And
the rule he gives them to make this trial by, is, to con-
sider whether they confess Jesus to be the Christ;
that is, the guide of their faith, and Lord of their ac-
tions ; not, whether they acknowledge the pope to be
his vicar : I say no more than St. Paul, in exhorting
all Christians to try all things, and holdfast that which
is good : than St. Peter, in commanding all Christians
to be ready to give a reason of the hope that is i?i them :
than our Saviour himself, in forewarning all his follow-
ers, that if they blindly follow blind guides, both lead-
ers and followers should fall into the ditch : and
again, in saying even to the people, Yea, and why of
yourselves judge ye not what is right f And though
by passion, or precipitation, or prejudice, by want of
reason, or not using what they have, men may be,
and are oftentimes, led into error and mischief; yet,
that they cannot be misguided by discourse, truly so
called, such as I have described, you yourself have
given them security. For what is discourse, but draw-
ing conclusions out of premises by good consequence ?
Now, the principles which we have settled, to wit, the
scriptures, are on all sides agreed to be infallibly true.
And you have told us in the fourth chapter of this
pamphlet, that " from truth no man can, by good con-
sequence, infer falsehood :" therefore, by discourse no

16 Preface to the Author of Charity Maintained,

man can possibly be led to error ; but if he err in his
conclusions, he must of necessity either err in his prin-
ciples (which here cannot have place) or commit some
error in his discourse ; that is indeed, not discourse,
but seem to do so.

13. You say, thirdly, with sufficient confidence,
" that if the true church may err in defining what
scriptures be canonical, or in the delivering the sense
thereof, then we must follow either the private spirit,
or else natural wit and judgment ; and by them exa-
mine what scriptures contain true or false doctrine, and
in that respect ought to be received or rejected." All
which is apparently untrue ; neither can any proof of
it be pretended. For though the present church may
possibly err in her judgment touching this matter, yet
have we other directions in it besides the private spirit
and the examination of the contents ; (which latter way
may conclude the negative very strongly, to wit, that
such or such a book cannot come from God, because it
contains irreconcilable contradictions ; but the affirm-
ative it cannot conclude, because the contents^of a book
may be all true, and yet the book not written by Divine
inspiration ;) other direction therefore I say we have
besides either of these three, and that is the testimony
of the primitive Christians.

14. You say, fourthly, with convenient boldness,
that " this infallible authority of your church being de-
nied, no man can be assured that any parcel of scrip-
ture was written by Divine inspiration : " which is an
untruth, for which no proof is pretended ; and besides,
void of modesty, and full of impiety : the first, because
the experience of innumerable Christians is against it,
who are sufficiently assured, that the scripture is di-
vinely inspired, and yet deny the infallible authority of
your church or any other : the second, because if I can-

With an Aiiswer to his Direction to N, N. 1 7

not have ground to be assured of the Divine authority of
scripture, unless I first believe your church infallible,
then I can have no ground at all to believe it ; because
there is no ground, nor can any be pretended, why I
should believe your church infallible, unless I first be-
lieve the scripture Divine.

15. Fifthly and lastly, you say, vrith confidence
in abundance, that " none can deny the infallible
authority of your church, but he must abandon all
infused faith and true religion, if he do but under-
stand himself:" vi^hich is to say, agreeable to what
you had said before, and what out of the abundance
of your heart you speak very often, " that all Christians
besides you are open fools or concealed atheists."
All this you say with notable confidence ; (as the
manner of sophisters is to place their confidence
of prevailing in their confident manner of speaking;)
but then for the evidence you promised to maintain
this confidence, that is quite vanished and become in-
visible.

16. Had I a mind to recriminate now, and to charge
papists (as you do protestants) that they lead men to
Socinianism, I could certainly make a much fairer show
of evidence than you have done : for I would not tell
you. You deny the infallibility of the church of England;
ergo, you lead to Socinianism ; which yet is altogether
as good an argument as this — Protestants deny the in-
fallibility of the Roman church ; ergo, they induce So-
cinianism : nor would I resume my former argument,
and urge you, that by holding the pope's infallibility
you submit yourself to that capital and mother he-
resy, by advantage whereof he may lead you at ease
to believe virtue vice, and vice virtue ; to believe Anti-
christianity Christianism, and Christianity Antichrist-
ianism : he may lead you to Socinianism, to Turcism,

CHILLINGWORTH, VOL. I. C

18 Preface to the Author of Charity Maintained ,

nay, to the Devil himself, if he have a mind to it : but
I would shew you, that divers ways the doctors of
your church do the principal and proper work of the
Socinians for them, undermining the doctrine of the
Trinity, by denying it to be supported by those pillars
of the faith which alone are fit and able to support it —
I mean scripture, and the consent of the ancient doc-
tors.

17. For scripture, your men deny very plainly and
frequently that this doctrine can be proved by it. See,
if you please, this plainly taught, and urged very earn-
estly, by cardinal Hosius, de Author. Sac. 1. 3. p. 53 ;
by Gordonius Huntlaeus, tom. 1. Controv. 1. de Verbo
Dei, c. 19; by Gretserus and Tannerus, in Colloquio
Ratisbon ; and also by Vega, Possevin, Wickus, and
others.

18. And then for the consent of the ancients : that
that also delivers it not, by whom are we taught but
by papists only? Who is it that makes known to all
the world that Eusebius, that great searcher and de-
vourer of the Christian libraries, was an Arian ? Is it
not your great Achilles, cardinal Perron, in his third
book and second chapter of his reply to king James ?
Who is it that informs us that Origen (who never was
questioned for any error in this matter in or near his
time) " denied the divinity of the Son and the Holy
Ghost ?" Is it not the same great cardinal, in his book
of the Eucharist against M. du Plessis, 1. 2. c. 7 ?
Who is it that pretends that " Irenaeus hath said those
things which he that should now hold would be es-
teemed an Arian ?" Is it not the same person, in his re-
ply to king James, in the fifth chapter of his fourth
observation ? And doth he not in the same place peach
Tertullian also, and in a manner give him away to the
Arians; and pronounce generally of the Fathers before

JVith an Ansiver to Ids Direction to N. N. 19

the council of Nice, that Arians would gladly be tried
by them ? And are not your fellow Jesuits also, even
the prime men of your order, prevaricators in this
point as well as others? Doth not your friend Mr. Fisher
or Mr. Floyd, in his book of the Nine Questions pro-
posed to him by king James, speak dangerously to the
same purpose, in his discourse of the resolution of faith,
towards the end ? giving us to understand, " that the
new reformed Arians bring very many testimonies of the
ancient Fathers, to prove that in this point they did
contradict themselves, and were contrary one to an-
other ; which places whosoever shall read will clearly
see that to common people they are unanswerable; yea,
that common people are not capable of the answers that
learned men yield unto such obscure passages." And
hath not your great antiquary Petavius, in his notes
upon Epiphanius, in Haer. 69, been very liberal to the
adversaries of the doctrine of the Trinity, and in a man-
ner given them for patrons and advocates, first Justin
Martyr, and then almost all the Fathers before the
council of Nice ; whose speeches, he says, touching this
point, cum orthodoxcefidel regula minime conse?itiunt?
Hereunto I might add, that the Dominicans and Jesuits
between them in another matter of great importance, viz.
God's prescience of future contingents, give the Socini-
ans the premises out of which their conclusion doth un-
avoidably follow : for the Dominicans maintain, on the
one side, that " God can foresee nothing but what he de-
crees ;" the Jesuits, on the other side, that " he doth not
decree all things :" and from hence the Socinians con-
clude (as it is obvious for them to do) that " he doth not
foresee all things." Lastly, I might adjoin this, that
you agree with one consent, and settle for a rule un-
questionable, that no part of religion can be repugnant
to reason ; whereunto you in particular subscribe un-

c 2

20 Preface to the Author of Charity Maintained,

awares in saying, " from truth no man can by good con-
sequence infer falsehood ;" which is to say, in effect, that
reason can never lead any man to error. And after
you have done so, you proclaim to all the world, (as you
in this pamphlet do very frequently,) that " if men fol-
low their reason and discourse," they will (if they un-
derstand themselves) be led to Socinianism. And thus
you see with what probable matter I might furnish out
and justify my accusation, if I should charge you with
leading men to Socinianism ; yet do I not conceive that
I have ground enough for this odious imputation. And
much less should you have charged protestants with it,
whom you confess to abhor and detest it, and who
fight against it, not with the broken reeds and out of
the paper fortresses of an imaginary infallibility, which
were only to make sport for their adversaries, but
with the sword of the Spirit, the word of God; of
which we may say most truly, what David said of Go-
liath's sword, offered him by Ahimelech, non est sicut
iste, " there is none comparable to it."

19. Thus protestants in general, I hope, are suffi-
ciently vindicated from your calumny. I proceed now
to do the same service for the divines of England;
whom you question first in point of learning and suf-
ficiency, and then in point of conscience and honesty,
as prevaricating in the religion which they profess, and
inclining to popery. Their learning, you say, consists
only in " some superficial talent of preaching, languages,
and elocution, and not in any deep knowledge of phi-
losophy, especially of metaphysics ; and much less of
that most solid, profitable, subtle, and ( O rem ridiculam^
Cato, etjocosam !) succinct method of school-divinity:"
wherein you have discovered in yourself the true ge-
nius and spirit of detraction. For taking advantage
from that wherein eiwy itself cannot deny but they are

With mi Answer to his Direction to ]V. N, 21

very eminent, and which requires great sufficiency of
substantial learning, you disparage them as insufficient
in all things else : as if, forsooth, because they dispute
not eternally — utrum chimera homhinans in vacuo,
possit comedere secundas intentiones — whether a mil-
lion of angels may not sit upon a needle's point —
because they fill not their brains with notions that
signify nothing, to the utter extermination of all reason
and common sense, and spend not an age in weaving
and unweaving subtle cobwebs, fitter to catch flies than
souls, therefore they have no deep knowledge in the
acroamatical part of learning. But I have too much
honoured the poorness of this detraction to take notice
of it.

20. The other part of your accusation strikes deeper,
and is more considerable : and that tells us, that "pro-
testantism waxetli weary of itself ; that the professors
of it, they especially of greatest worth, learning, and
authority, love temper and moderation ; and are at this
time more unresolved where to fasten, than at the in-
fancy of their church ;" that ** their churches begin to
look with a new face ; their walls to speak a new lan-
guage ; their doctrine to be altered in many things, for
which their progenitors forsook the then visible church
of Christ : for example — the pope not antichrist : prayer
for the dead : limhus patrum : pictures : that the
church hath authority in determining controversies of
faith, and to interpret scripture : about free will, pre-
destination, universal grace :" that " all our works are
not sins : merit of good works : inherent justice : faith
alone doth not justify ; charity to be preferred be-
fore knowledge : traditions : commandments possible to
be kept:" that "their Thirty-nine Articles are pa-
tient, nay ambitious, of some sense wherein they may
seem catholic :" that " to allege the necessity of wife

c 3

22 Preface to the Author of Charity Maintained,

and children in these days, is but a weak plea for a
married minister to compass a benefice :" that " Cal-
vinism is at length accounted heresy, and little less
than treason :" that " men in talk and writing use will-
ingly the once fearful names of priests and altars:"
that " they are now put in mind, that for exposition of
scripture they are by canon bound to follow the Fathers;
which if they do with sincerity, it is easy to tell what
doom will pass against protestants, seeing, by the con-
fession of protestants, the Fathers are on the papists'
side, which the answerer to some so clearly demon-
strated that they remained convinced :" in fine, as the
Samaritans saw in the disciples' countenances that they
meant to go to Jerusalem, so you pretend it is even
legible in the foreheads of these men that they are/
even going, nay, making haste to Rome ; which scur-
rilous libel, void of all truth, discretion, and honesty,
what effect it may have wrought, what credit it may
have gained with credulous papists, (who dream what
they desire, and believe their own dreams,) or with ill-
affected, jealous, and weak protestants, I cannot tell :
but one thing I dare boldly say, that you yourself did
never believe it. ^

21. For did you indeed conceive, or had any probable
hope, that such men as you describe, men of worth, of
learning, and authority too, were friends and favourers
of your religion, and inclinable to your party ; can any
man imagine that you would proclaim it, and bid the
world take heed of them ? Sic notus Ulysses ? Do we
know the Jesuits no better than so ? What, are they
turned prevaricators against their own faction ? Are
they likely men to betray and expose their own agents
and instruments, and to awaken the eyes of jealousy,
and to raise the clamour of the people against them ?
Certainly, your zeal to the see of Rome, testified by

With an Answer to his Direction to iV. N, 23

your fourth vow of special obedience to the pope, pro-
per to your order, and your cunning carriage of all
affairs for the greater advantage and advancement of
that see, are clear demonstrations that if you had
tliought thus, you would never have said so. The
truth is, they that can run to extremes in opposition
against you; they that pull down your infallibility,
and set up their own ; they that declaim against your
tyranny, and exercise it themselves over others, are the
adversaries that give you greatest advantage, and such
as you love to deal with : whereas upon men of temper
and moderation, such as will oppose nothing because
you maintain it, but will draw as near to you, that they
may draw you to them, as the truth will suffer them ;
such as require of Christians to believe only in Christ,
and will damn no man nor doctrine without express
and certain warrant from God's word ; upon such as
these you know not how to fasten : but if you chance
to have conference with any such, (which yet, as much
as possibly you can, you avoid and decline,) you are
very speedily put to silence, and see the indefensible
weakness of your cause laid open to all men. And this,
I verily believe, is the true reason that you thus rave
and rage against them ; as foreseeing your time of pre-
vailing, or even of subsisting, would be short, if other
adversaries gave you no more advantage than they
do.

22. In which persuasion also I am much confirmed
by consideration of the silliness and poorness of those
suggestions, and partly of the apparent vanity and false-
hood of them, which you offer in justification of this
wicked calumny. For what, if our devotion towards
God out of a desire that he should be worshipped as
in spirit and in truth in the first place, so also in the
heauty of holiness ? — what if out of fear that too much

c 4

24 Preface to the Author of Charity Maintained,

simplicity and nakedness in the public service of God,
may beget in the ordinary sort of men a dull and stupid
irreverence ; and out of hope, that the outvrard state
and glory of it, being vrell-disposed, and vrisely moder-
ated, may ingender, quicken, increase, and nourish the
inward reverence, respect, and devotion, w^hich is due
unto God's sovereign majesty and power? — what if out
of a persuasion and desire that papists may be won
over to us the sooner, by the removing of this scandal
out of their way ; and out of an holy jealousy, that the
weaker sort of protestants might be the easier seduced
to them by the magnificence and pomp of their church-
service, in case it were not removed ? — I say, what if
out of these considerations the governors of our church,
more of late than formerly, have set themselves to adorn
and beautify the places where God's honour dwells, and
to make them as ^ heaven-like as they can with earthly
ornaments ? Is this a sign that they are warping to-
wards popery ? Is this devotion in the church of Eng-
land an argument that she is coming over to the church
of Rome ? Sir Edwin Sands, I presume, every man will
grant, had no inclination that way ; yet he, forty years
since, highly commended this part of devotion in pa-
pists, and makes no scruple of proposing it to the imi-
tation of protestants ; little thinking that they who
would follow his counsel, and endeavour to take away
this disparagement of protestants, and this glorying of
papists, should have been censured for it, as making
way and inclining to popery. His *^ words to this pur-
pose are excellent words ; and because they shew plainly
that what is now practised was approved by zealous
protestants so long ago, I will here set them down.

23. " This one thing I cannot but highly commend
in that sort and order : they spare nothing which either
b lieavenly Oocf. ^ Survey of Religion, iJiit.

With an Answer to his Direction to N. N. 25

cost can perform in enriching, or skill in adorning, the
temple of God ; or to set out his service with the greatest
pomp and magnificence that can be devised. And al-
though for the most part much baseness and childish-
ness is predominant in the masters and contrivers of
their ceremonies, yet this outvrard state and glory, be-
ing well disposed, doth ingender, quicken, increase, and
nourish the inward reverence, respect, and devotion,
which is due unto sovereign majesty and power. And
although I am not ignorant that many men well reputed
have embraced the thrifty opinion of that disciple, who
thought all to be wasted that was bestowed upon
Christ in that sort, and that it were much better be-
stowed upon the poor ; (yet with an eye perhaps that
themselves would be his quarter-almoners ;) notwith-
standing, I must confess, it will never sink into my
heart, that in proportion of reason, the allowance for
furnishing out of the service of God should be measured
by the scant and strict rule of mere necessity ; (a pro-
portion so low, that nature to other most bountiful, in
matter of necessity hath not failed, no not the most ig-
noble creatures of the world ;) and that for ourselves,
no measure of heaping, but the most we can get ; no
rule of expense, but to the utmost pomp we list : or
that God himself had so enriched the lower parts of the
world with such wonderful varieties of beauty and
glory, that they might serve only to the pampering of
mortal man in his pride ; and that in the service of the
high Creator, Lord, and Giver, (the outward glory of
whose higher palace may appear by the very lamps
that we see so far off burning gloriously in it,) only the
simpler, baser, cheaper, less noble, less beautiful, less
glorious things should be employed ; especially seeing,
as in princes' courts, so in the service of God also, this
outward state and glory, being well disposed, doth (as I

26 Preface to the Author of Charity Maintained^

have said) ingender, quicken, increase, and nourish the
inward reverence, respect, and devotion, which is due to
so sovereign majesty and power ; which those whom
the use thereof cannot persuade into, would easily, by
the want of it, be brought to confess. For which cause
I crave leave to be excused by them herein, if in zeal
to the common Lord of all, I choose rather to commend
the virtue of an enemy, than to flatter the vice and im-
becility of a friend." And so much for this matter.

24. Again ; what if the names oi priests and altars,
so frequent in the ancient Fathers, though not now in
the popish sense, be now resumed and more commonly
used in England than of late times they were ; that so
the colourable argument of their conformity, which is
but nominal with the ancient church, and our incon-
formity, which the governors of the church would not
have so much as nominal, may be taken away from
them ; and the church of England may be put in a
state, in this regard more justifiable against the Roman
than formerly it was, being hereby enabled to say to
papists, (whensoever these names are objected,) We also
use the names oi priests and altars, and yet believe nei-
ther the corporal presence nor any proper and propi-
tiatory sacrifice ?

25. What if protestants be now put in mind, that
for exposition of scripture they are bound by a canon
to follow the ancient Fathers ; which whosoever doth
with sincerity, it is utterly impossible he should be a
papist ? And it is most falsely said by you, that you
know, that to some protestants I clearly demonstrated,
or ever so much as undertook, or went about to demon-
strate the contrary. What if the centurists be cen-
sured somewhat roundly by a protestant divine, for
affirming that " the keeping of the Lord's day was a
thing indifferent for two hundred years ?" Is there in

With an Answer to Ins Directio7i to N. N. m

all this, or any part of it, any kind of proof of this
scandalous calumny? Certainly, if you can make no
better arguments than these, and have so little judg-
ment as to think these any, you have great reason to
decline conferences, and signior Con to prohibit you
from wanting books any more.

26. As for the points of doctrine, vrherein you pre-
tend that these divines begin of late to falter, and to
comply vi^ith the church of Rome ; vipon a due ex-
amination of particulars, it will presently appear,
first, that part of them alvrays have been, and now
are, held constantly one way by them : as, the au-
thority of the church in determining controversies
of faith, though not the infallibility of it ; that there
is inherent justice, though so imperfect that it cannot
justify ; that there are traditions, though none neces-
sary ; that charity is to be preferred before know-
ledge ; that good works are not properly meritorious ;
and, lastly, that faith alone justifies, though that faith
justifies not which is alone. And secondly, for the re-
mainder, that they every one of them have been an-
ciently, without breach of charity, disputed among pro-
testants : such, for example, were the questions about
the pope's being the antichrist ; the lawfulness of
some kind of prayers for the dead ; the estate of the
fathers' souls before Christ's ascension ; freewill ; pre-
destination ; universal grace ; the possibility of keeping
God's commandments ; the use of pictures in the
church : wherein that there hath been anciently diver-
sity of opinion amongst protestants, it is justified to my
hand by a witness with you beyond exception, even
your great friend Mr. Brerely, " whose care, exactness,
and fidelity" (you say in your preface) " is so extraordi-
nary great." Consult him therefore, tract 3. sect. 7.
of his Apology, and in the 9, 10, 11, 14, 24, 26, 27, 37.

28 Preface to the Author of Charity Maintained,

subdivisions of that section, you shall see, as in a
mirror, yourself proved an egregious calumniator, for
charging protestants with innovation, and inclining to
popery, under pretence, forsooth, that their doctrine be-
gins of late to be altered in these points. Whereas
Mr. Brerely will inform you, they have been anciently,
and even from the beginning of the reformation, con-
troverted amongst them, though perhaps the stream
and current of their doctors run one way, and only
some brook or rivulet of them the others.

27. And thus my friends, I suppose, are clearly vin-
dicated from your scandals and calumnies. It remains
now, in the last place, I bring myself fairly off from your
foul aspersions, that so my person may not be (as indeed
howsoever it should not be) any disadvantage or dispar-
agement to the cause, nor any scandal to weak Christians.

28. Your injuries then to me (no way deserved by
me, but by differing in opinion from you, wherein yet
you surely differ from me as much as I from you) are
especially three : for, first, upon hearsay, and refusing
to give me opportunity of begetting in you a better un-
derstanding of me, you charge me with a great number
of false and impious doctrines, which I will not name
in particular, because I will not assist you so far in
the spreading of my own undeserved defamation — but
whosoever teaches or holds them, let kirn he anathema !
The sum of them all, cast up by yourself in your first
chapter, is this ; " Nothing ought or can be certainly
believed, farther than it may be proved by evidence of
natural reason ;" (where, I conceive, natural reason is
opposed to supernatural revelation ;) — and whosoever
holds so, let him be anathema I And moreover, to clear
myself once for all from all imputations of this nature,
which charge me injuriously with denial of supernatu-
ral verities, I profess sincerely that I believe all those

IVith an Answer to his Direction to N. N, ^9

books of scripture which the church of England ac-
counts canonical to be the infallible word of God : I
believe all things evidently contained in them ; all
things evidently, or even probably deducible from them:
I acknowledge all that to be heresy, which by the act
of parliament primo of queen Elizabeth is declared to
be so, and only to be so : and though in such points
which may be held diversely of divers men salva Jidei
compage, I would not take any man's liberty from him,
and humbly beseech all men that they would not take
mine from me ; yet thus much I can say, (which I hope
will satisfy any man of reason,) that whatsoever hath
been held necessary to salvation, either by the catholic
church of all ages, or by the consent of Fathers, mea-
sured by Vincentius Lyrinensis's rule, or is held ne-
cessary, either by the catholic church of this age, or
by the consent of protestants, or even by the church of
England, that, against the Socinians, and all others
whatsoever, I do verily believe and embrace.

29. Another great and manifest injury you have done
me, in charging me to have forsaken your religion, be-
cause it conduced not to my temporal ends, and suited
not with my desires and designs ; which certainly is
an horrible crime, and whereof if you could convince
me by just and strong presumptions, I should then ac-
knowledge myself to deserve that opinion which you
would fain induce your credents unto, that I changed
not your religion for any other, but for none at all.
But of this great fault my conscience acquits me, and
God, who only knows the hearts of all men, knows that
I am innocent : neither doubt I, but all they who
know me, and amongst them many persons of place
and quality, will say they have reason in this matter
to be my compurgators. And for you, though you are
very affirmative in your accusation, yet you neither do

30 Preface to the Author of Charity Maintained,

nor can produce any proof or presumption for it ; but
forgetting yourself, (as it is God's will ofttirnes that
slanderers should do,) have let fall some passages, which
being well weighed, will make considering men apt to
believe that you did not believe yourself. For how is
it possible you should believe that I deserted your reli-
gion for ends, and against the light of my conscience,
out of a desire of preferment ; and yet, out of scruple
of conscience, should refuse (which also you impute to
me) to subscribe the Thirty-nine Articles, that is, refuse
to enter at the only common door which here in Eng-
land leads to preferment ? Again, how incredible is it
that you should believe that I forsook the profession of
your religion, as not suiting with my desires and de-
signs, which yet reconciles the enjoying of the plea-
sures and profits of sin here, with the hope of happiness
hereafter, and proposes as great hope of temporal ad-
vancements to the capable servants of it, as any, nay
more than any religion in the world ; and, instead of
this, should choose Socinianism, a doctrine, which how-
soever erroneous in explicating the mysteries of religion,
and allowing greater liberty of oj^inion in speculative
matters, than any other company of Christians doth, or
they should do ; yet certainly, which you, I am sure,
will pretend and maintain to explicate the laws of
Christ with more rigour, and less indulgence and con-
descendence to the desires of flesh and blood than your
doctrine doth : and besides, such a doctrine, by which
no man in his right mind can hope for any honour
or preferment, either in this church or state, or any
other: all which clearly demonstrates that this foul and
false aspersion, which you have cast upon me, proceeds
from no other fountain but a heart abounding with
gall and bitterness of uncharitableness, and even blinded
with malice towards me ; or else from a perverse zeal

With an Answer to his Direction to N, N. 31

to your superstition, which secretly suggests this persua-
sion to you : — that for the catholic cause nothing is un-
lawful, but that you may make use of such indirect and
crooked arts as these to blast my reputation, and to pos-
sess men's minds with disaffection to my person ; lest
otherwise, peradventure, they might with some indiffer-
ence hear reason from me. God, I hope, which bringeth
light out of darkness, will turn your counsels to fool-
ishness, and give all good men grace to perceive how
weak and ruinous that religion must be, which needs
supportance from such tricks and devices : so I call
them, because they deserve no better name. For what
are all these personal matters, which hitherto you spoke
of, to the business in hand ? If it could be proved that
cardinal Bellarmine was indeed a Jew, or that cardinal
Perron was an atheist ; yet I presume you would not
accept of this for an answer to all their writings in de-
fence of your religion. Let then my actions, intentions,
and opinions be what they will, yet I hope truth is
nevertheless truth, nor reason ever the less reason, be-
cause I speak it. And therefore the Christian reader,
knowing that his salvation or damnation depends upon
his impartial and sincere judgment of these things, will
guard himself,! hope, from these impostures, and regard
not the person, but the cause and the reasons of it;
not who speaks, but what is spoken ; which is all the fa-
vour I desire of him, as knowing that I am desirous
not to persuade him, unless it be truth whereunto I
persuade him.

30. The third and last part of my accusation was,
that I answer out of "principles which protestants them-
selves will profess to detest ;" which indeed were to the
purpose, if it could be justified. But besides that it is
confuted by my whole book, and made ridiculous by
the approbations premised unto it ; it is very easy for

32 Preface to the Author of Charity Maintained,

rae out of your own mouth and words to prove it a
most injurious calumny. For what one conclusion is
there in the whole fabric of my discourse that is not
naturally deducible out of this one principle, that " all
things necessary to salvation are evidently contained in
scripture ?" or what one conclusion almost of import-
ance is there in your book which is not by this one
clearly confutable ?

31. *^ Grant this, and it will presently follow, in op-
position to your first conclusion, and the argument of
your first chapter, that amongst men of different opin-
ions, touching the obscure and controverted questions
of religion, such as may with probability be disputed
on both sides, (and such are the disputes of protestants,)
good men and lovers of truth on all sides may be
saved ; because all necessary things being supposed
evident concerning them, with men so qualified, there
will be no difference : there being no more certain sign
that a point is not evident, than that honest and under-
standing and indifferent men, and such as give them-
selves liberty of judgment after a mature consideration
of the matter, differ about it.

32. Grant this, and it will appear, secondly, that the
means whereby the revealed truths of God are conveyed
to our understanding, and which are to determine all
controversies in faith necessary to be determined, may
be, for any thing you have said to the contrary, not a
church, but the scripture ; which contradicts the doc-
trine of your second chapter.

33. Grant this, and the distinction of points funda-
mental and not fundamental will appear very good and
pertinent. For those truths will be fundamental

*^ This, in the Oxford edition, is not a new paragraph, but a
part of section 30, so that all the following numbers are here altered
of course.

With an ylnswer to his Direction to N, N, 33

which are evidently delivered in scripture, and com-
manded to be preached to all men ; those not funda-
mental, which are obscure. And nothing will hinder
but that the catholic church may err in the latter kind
of the said points ; because truths not necessary to the
salvation, cannot be necessary to the being of a church ;
and because it is not absolutely necessary that God
should assist his church any farther than to bring her
to salvation, neither will there be any necessity at all
of any infallible guide, either to consign unwritten tra-
ditions, or to declare the obscurities of the faith : not
for the former end, because this principle being granted
true, nothing unwritten can be necessary to be con-
signed : nor for the latter, because nothing that is ob-
scure can be necessary to be understood, or not mis-
taken. And so the discourse of your whole third
chapter will presently vanish.

34. Fourthly. For the creeds containing the funda-
mentals of simple belief, though I see not how it may
be deduced from this principle ; yet the granting of
this plainly renders the whole dispute touching the
creed unnecessary. For if all necessary things, of all
sorts, whether of simple belief or practice, be confessed
to be clearly contained in scripture ; what imports it,
whether those of one sort be contained in the creed ?

35. Fifthly. Let this be granted, and the immediate
corollary, in opposition to your fifth chapter, will be
and must be, that not protestants for rejecting, but
the church of Rome for imposing upon the faith of
Christians doctrines unwritten and unnecessary, and
for disturbing the church's peace, and dividing unity
for such matters, is in a high degree presumptuous and
schismatical.

36. Grant this, sixthly, and it will follow unavoid-
ably, that protestants cannot possibly be heretics, seeing

CHILLINGWORTH, VOL. I. D

34 Preface to the Author of Charity Maintained,

they believe all things evidently contained in scripture,
vi^hich are supposed to be all that is necessary to be
believed : and so your sixth chapter is clearly con-
futed.

37. Grant this, lastly, and it vrill be undoubtedly
consequent, in contradiction of your seventh chapter,
that no man can shew more charity to himself than by
continuing a protestant ; seeing protestants are sup-
posed to believe, and therefore may accordingly prac-
tise, at least by their religion are not hindered from
practising and performing, all things necessary to sal-
vation.

38. So that the position of this one principle is the
direct overthrow of your whole book ; and therefore I
needed not, nor indeed have I made use of any other.
Now this principle, which is not only the corner stone,
or chief pillar, but even the basis, and the adequate
foundation of my answer, and which, while it stands
firm and unmovable, cannot but be the supporter of
my book, and the certain ruin of yours, is so far from
being, according to your pretence, detested by all pro-
testants, that all protestants whatsoever, as you may
see in their harmony of confessions, unanimously pro-
fess and maintain it. And you yourself, (chap. vi.
§. 30.) plainly confess as much, in saying, " The
whole edifice of the faith of protestants is settled on
these two principles : these particular books are ca-
nonical scripture; and the sense and meaning of
them is plain and evident, at least in all points neces-
sary to salvation."

39. And thus your venom against me is in a man-
ner spent, saving only that there remains two little
impertinencies, whereby you would disable me from
being a fit advocate for the cause of protestants. The
first, because I refuse to subscribe the Articles of the

PFith an Answer to his Direction to N. N. 35

church of England ; the second, because I have set
down in writing, Motives which sometime induced me
to forsake protestantism, and hitherto have not an-
swered them.

40. By the former of which objections, it should
seem, that either you conceive the Thirty-nine Articles
the common doctrine of all protestants ; and if they
be, why have you so often upbraided them with their
many and great differences ? or else, that it is the pe-
culiar defence of the church of England, and not the
common cause of all protestants, which is here under-
taken by me ; which are certainly very gross mistakes.
And yet why he who makes scruple of subscribing the
truth of one or two propositions, may not yet be fit
enough to maintain, that those who do subscribe them
are in a savable condition, I do not understand. Now
though I hold not the doctrine of all protestants abso-
lutely true, (which with reason cannot be required of
me, while they hold contradictions,) yet I hold it free
from all impiety, and from all error destructive of sal-
vation, or in itself damnable : and this I think in reason
may sufficiently qualify me for a maintainer of this as-
sertion, that protestancy destroys not salvation. For
the church of England, I am persuaded, that the con-
stant doctrine of it is so pure and orthodox, that who-
soever believes it, and lives according to it, undoubtedly
he shall be saved ; and that there is no error in it
which may necessitate or warrant any man to disturb
the peace or renounce the communion of it. This, in
my opinion, is all intended by subscription ; and thus
much, if you conceive me not ready to subscribe, your
charity, I assure you, is much mistaken.

41. Your other objection against me is yet more im-
pertinent and frivolous than the former ; unless perhaps
it be a just exception against a physician, that himself

D 2

36 Preface to the Author of Charity Maintained,

was sometimes in, and recovered himself from, that
disease which he undertakes to cure ; or against a
guide in a way, that at first, before he had experience
himself, mistook it, and afterwards found his error and
amended it. That noble writer, Michael de Montaigne,
was surely of a far different mind ; for he will hardly
allow any physician competent, but only for such dis-
eases as himself had passed through : and a far greater
than Montaigne, even he that said, Tu conversus con-
firmafr aires, gives us sufficiently to understand, that
they which have themselves been in such a state as to
need conversion, are not thereby made incapable of,
but rather engaged and obliged unto, and qualified for,
this charitable function.

42. Neither am I guilty of that strange and prepos-
terous zeal (as you esteem it) which you impute to me ;
for having been so long careless, in removing this scan-
dal against protestants, and answering my own Motives,
and yet now shewing such fervour in writing against
others. For neither are they other motives, but the
very same, for the most part, with those that abused me,
against which, this book which I now publish is in a
manner wholly employed : and besides, though you
Jesuits take upon you to have such large and uni-
versal intelligence of all state-affairs and matters of
importance ; yet I hope such a contemptible matter
as an answer of mine to a little piece of paper,
may very probably have been written and escaped your
observation. The truth is, I made an answer to them
three years since and better, which perhaps might have
been published, but for two reasons : one, because the
Motives were never public until you made them so;
the other, because I was loath to proclaim to all the
world so much weakness as I shewed in suffering my-
self to be abused by such silly sophisms : all which

With an Answer to his Direction to N, N. B7

proceed upon mistakes and false suppositions, which
unadvisedly I took for granted ; as when I have set
down the motives in order by subsequent answers to
them, I shall quickly demonstrate, and so make an end.
43. The motives then were these :

1. " Because perpetual visible profession, which could
never be wanting to the religion of Christ, or any part
of it, is apparently wanting to protestant religion^ so
far as concerns the points in contestation.

2. " Because Luther and his followers, separating
from the church of Rome, separated also from all
churches, pure or impure, true or false, then being
in the world ; upon which ground I conclude, that
either God's promises did fail of performance, if there
were then no church in the world which held all things
necessary, and nothing repugnant to salvation ; or else,
that Luther and his sectaries, separating from all
churches then in the world, and so from the true, if
there were any true, were damnable schismatics.

3. " Because, if any credit may be given to as
creditable records as any are extant, the doctrine of
catholics hath been frequently confirmed ; and the
opposite doctrine of protestants confounded with supei-
natural and Divine miracles.

4. " Because many points of protestant doctrine are
the damned opinions of heretics, condemned by the
primitive church.

5. " Because the prophecies of the Old Testament,
touching the conversion of kings and nations to the
true religion of Christ, have been accomplished in and
by the catholic Roman religion, and the professors of it ;
and not by protestant religion, and the professors of it.

6. " Because the doctrine of the church of Rome is
conformable, and the doctrine of protestants contrary
to the doctrine of the Fathers of the primitive church,

d3

38 Preface to the Author of Chanty Maivitainedy

even by the confession of protestants themselves ; I
mean, those Fathers who lived within the compass of
the first 600 years ; to whom protestants themselves
do very frequently and very confidently appeal.

7. " Because the first pretended reformers had nei-
ther extraordinary commission from God, nor ordinary
mission from the church, to preach protestant doctrine.

8. "Because Luther, to preach against the mass,
(which contains the most material points now in con-
troversy,) was persuaded by reasons suggested to him
by the Devil himself, disputing with him. So himself
professeth, in his book de Missa Privata ; that all men
might take heed of following him, who professeth him-
self to follow the Devil.

9. " Because the protestant cause is now, and hath
been from the beginning, maintained with gross falsifi-
cations and calumnies ; whereof their prime contro-
versy-writers are notoriously and in high degree
guilty.

10. " Because by denying all human authority, either
of pope or council or church, to determine controver-
sies of faith, they have abolished all possible means of
suppressing heresy, or restoring unity to the church."

These are the motives. Now my answers to them
follow briefly and in order.

44. To the first. God hath neither decreed nor fore-
told, that his true doctrine should de facto be always
visibly professed, without any mixture of falsehood.

To the second. God hath neither decreed nor fore-
told, that there shall be always a visible company of
men free from all error in itself damnable. Neither is
it always of necessity schismatical to separate from the
external communion of a church, though wanting no-
thing necessary : for if this church, supposed to want
nothing necessary, require me to profess against my

With an Answer to his Direction to N. N, 39

conscience that I believe some error, though never so
small and innocent, which I do not believe, and will
not allow me her communion but upon this condition ;
in this case the churcli for requiring this condition
is schismatical, and not I for separating from the
church.

To the third. If any credit may be given to records,
far more creditable than these, the doctrine of protes-
tants, that is, the Bible, hath been confirmed, and the
doctrine of papists, which is in many points plainly op-
posite to it, confounded, with supernatural and Divine
miracles, which, for number and glory outshine popish
pretended miracles, as much as the sun doth an ignis
fatuus ; those, I mean, which were wrought by our
Saviour Christ and his apostles. Now this book, by the
confession of all sides, confirmed by innumerable mira-
cles, foretells me plainly that in after-ages great signs and
wonders shall be wrought in confirmation of false doc-
trine ; and that I am not to believe any doctrine, which
seems to my understanding repugnant to the first,
though an angel from heaven should teach it ; which
were certainly as great a miracle as any that was ever
wrought in attestation of any part of the doctrine of
the church of Rome. But, that true doctrine should
in all ages have the testimony of miracles, that I am
no where taught ; so that I have more reason to sus-
pect, and be afraid of pretended miracles, as signs of
false doctrine, than much to regard them as certain
arguments of the truth. Besides, setting aside the
Bible, and the tradition of it, there is as good story
for miracles wrought by those who lived and died in
opposition to the doctrine of the Roman church, (as
by S. Cyprian, Colmannus, Columbanus, Aidanus, and
others,) as there is for those that are pretended to be
wrought by the members of that church. Lastly, it

D 4

40 Preface to the Author of Charity Maintained^

seems to me no strange thing, that God in his justice
should permit some true miracles to be wrought to
delude them, who have forged so many, as apparently
the professors of the Roman doctrine have, to abuse the
world.

To the fourth. All those were not heretics ^ which,
by Philastrius, Epiphanius, or St. Austin were put in
the catalogue of heretics.

To the fifth. Kings and nations have been and may
be converted by men of contrary religions.

To the sixth. The doctrine of papists is confessed by
papists contrary to the Fathers in many points.

To the seventh. The pastors of a church cannot but
have authority from it to preach against the abuses of
it, whether in doctrine or practice, if there be any in
it : neither can any Christian want an ordinary com-
mission from God to do a necessary work of charity
after a peaceable manner, when there is nobody else
that can or will do it. In extraordinary cases, extra-
ordinary courses are not to be disallowed. If some
Christian layman should come into a country of infidels,
and had ability to persuade them to Christianity, who
would say he might not use it for want of commission ?

To the eighth. Luther's conference with the Devil
might be, for aught I know, nothing but a melancholy
dream. If it were real, the Devil might persuade Luther
from the mass, hoping by doing so to keep him constant
to it ; or that others would make his dissuasion from it
an argument for it, (as we see papists do,) and be afraid
of following Luther, as confessing himself to have been
persuaded by the Devil.

To the ninth. Iliacos intra muros peccatur et extra,

e See this acknowledged by Bellar. de Script. Eccles. in Phi-
lastrio ; by Petavius Animad. in Epiph. de inscript. operis ; by
St. Austin Lib. de Hajr. 80.

With an Anstver to his Direction to N. N, 41

Papists are more guilty of this fault than protestants.
Even this very author in this very pamphlet hath not
so many leaves as falsifications and calumnies.

To the tenth. Let all men believe the scripture, and
that only, and endeavour to believe it in the true sense,
and require no more of others, and they shall find
this not only a better, but the only means to suppress
heresy and restore unity. For he that believes the
scripture sincerely, and endeavours to believe it in the
true sense, cannot possibly be an heretic. And if no
more than this were required of any man to make him
capable of the church's communion, then all men so
qualified, though they vrere different in opinion, yet,
notwithstanding any such difference, must be of neces-
sity one in communion.

THE AUTHOR OF

CHARITY MAINTAINED,

HIS PREFACE TO THE READER.

" vorlVE me leave (good reader) to inform thee, by
way of preface, of three points : the first concerns
D. Potter's Answer to Charity Mistaken. The second
relates to this Reply of mine. And the third contains
some premonitions or prescriptions, in case D. Potter,
or any in his behalf, think fit to rejoin.

2. "For the first point, concerning D. Potter's Answer,
I say in general, reserving particulars to their proper
places, that in his whole book he hath not so much as
once truly and really fallen upon the point in question ;
which was, whether both catholics and protestants can
be saved in their several professions ? and therefore
Charity Mistaken judiciously pressing those particulars,
wherein the difficulty doth precisely consist, proves in
general that there is but one true church ; that all
Christians are obliged to hearken to her ; that she
must be ever visible and infallible ; that to separate
one's self from her communion is schism ; and to dissent
from her doctrine is heresy, though it be in points never
so few, or never so small in their own nature ; and,
therefore, that the distinction of points fundamental
and not fundamental is wholly vain, as it is applied by
protestants. These (I say) and some other general
grounds. Charity Mistaken handles ; and out of them
doth clearly evince, that any the least difference in
faith cannot stand with salvation on both sides. And

The Author of Charity Maintained. 43

therefore, since it is apparent that catholics and pro-
testants disagree in very many points of faith, they
both cannot hope to be saved without repentance ; and,
consequently, as we hold that protestancy unrepented
destroys salvation, so must they also believe that we
cannot be saved, if they judge their own religion to be
true, and ours to be false. And whosoever disguiseth
this truth is an enemy to souls, which he deceives with
ungrounded false hope of salvation in different faiths
and religions. And this Charity Mistaken performed
exactly, according to that which appears to have been
his design, which was not to descend to particular
disputes, as D. Potter affectedly does ; namely, whether
or no the Roman church be the only church of Christ;
and much less whether general councils be infallible :
whether the pope may err in his decrees common to the
whole church : whether he be above a general council :
whether all points of faith be contained in scripture :
whether faith be resolved into the authority of the
church, as into its last formal object and motive : and
least of all did he discourse of images, communion
under both kinds, public service in an unknown tongue,
seven sacraments, sacrifice of the mass, indulgences,
and index expurgatorius. All which and divers other
articles D. Potter (as I said) draws by violence into his
book : and he might as well have brought in Pope Joan,
or antichrist, or the Jews who are permitted to live in
Rome ; which are common themes for men that want
better matter, as D. Potter was forced to fetch in the
aforesaid controversies, that so he might dazzle the
eyes, and distract the mind of the reader, and hinder
him from perceiving that in his whole Answer he
uttereth nothing to the purpose and point in question ;
•which if he had followed closely, I dare well say he
might have dispatched his whole book in two or three

44 The Author of Charity Maintained^

sheets of paper. But the truth is, he was loath to affirm
plainly^ that generally both catholics and protestants
may be saved. And yet seeing it to be most evident,
that protestants cannot pretend to have any true church
before Luther, except the Roman, and such as agreed
with her ; and, consequently, that they cannot hope for
salvation if they deny it to us ; he thought best to
avoid this difficulty by confusion of language, and to
fill up his book with points which make nothing to the
purpose : wherein he is less excusable, because he must
grant that those very particulars, to which he di-
gresseth, are not fundamental errors, though it should
be granted that they be errors, which indeed are
catholic verities: for since they be not fundamental,
nor destructive of salvation, what imports it whether
we hold them or no, forasmuch as concerns our possi-
bility to be saved ?

3. " In one thing only he will perhaps seem to have
touched the point in question ; to wit, in his distinction
of points fundamental and not fundamental; because
some may think that a difference in points which are
not fundamental breaks not the unity of faith, and
hinders not the hope of salvation in persons so dis-
agreeing. And yet, in this very distinction, he never
speaks to the purpose indeed, but only says, that there
are some points so fundamental, as that all are obliged
to know and believe them explicitly ; but never tells
us whether there be any other points of faith which
a man may deny or disbelieve, though they be suffici-
ently presented to his understanding as truths revealed
or testified by Almighty God ; which was the only
thing in question. For if it be damnable, as certainly
it is, to deny or disbelieve any one truth witnessed by
Almighty God, though the thing be not in itself of any
great consequence or moment ; and since, of two dis-

His Preface to the Reader. 45

agreeing in matters of faith, one must necessarily deny
some such truth ; it clearly follows, that amongst men
of different faiths or religions, one only can be saved,
though their difference consist of divers, or but even
one point, which is not in its own nature fundamental,
as I declare at large in divers places of my first part.
So that it is clear D. Potter, even in this his last refuge
and distinction, never comes to the point in question :
to say nothing, that he himself doth quite overthrow
it, and plainly contradict his whole design, as I shew
in the third chapter of my first part.

4. " And as for D. Potter's manner of handling those
very points, which are utterly beside the purpose, it
consists only in bringing vulgar mean objections, which
have been answered a thousand times ; yea, and some
of them are clearly answered even in Charity Mistaken ;
but he takes no knowledge at all of any such answers,
and much less does he apply himself to confute them.
He allegeth also authors with so great corruption and
fraud, as I would not have believed, if I had not found
it by clear and frequent experience. In his second
edition, he has indeed left out one or two gross corrup-
tions, amongst many others no less notorious ; having,
as it seems, been warned by some friends, that they
could not stand with his credit : but even in this his
second edition he retracts them not at all, nor declares
that he was mistaken in the first; and so his reader
of the first edition shall ever be deceived by him, though
withal he read the second. For preventing of which

♦inconvenience, I have thought it necessary to take notice
of them, and discover them in my Reply.

5. "And for conclusion of this point I will only
say, that D. Potter might have well spared his pains,
if he had ingenuously acknowledged where the whole
substance, yea, and sometimes the very words and

46 The Author of Charity Maintained,

phrases of his book, may be found in far briefer
manner, namely, in a sermon of D. Usher's, preached
before our late sovereign lord king James, the 20th
of June, 1624, at Wansted ; containing A Declaration
of the Universality of the Church of Christ, and the
Unity of Faith professed therein : vrhich sermon having
been roundly and vrittily confuted by a catholic divine,
under the name of Paulus Veridicus, within the compass
of about four sheets of paper, D. Potter's Answer to
Charity Mistaken was in effect confuted before it
appeared. And this may suffice for a general censure
of his Answer to Charity Mistaken.

6. " For the second, touching my Reply : if you
wonder at the bulk thereof, compared either with
Charity Mistaken, or D. Potter's Answer ; I desire you
to consider well of w^hat now I am about to say, and
then I hope you will see that I was cast upon a mere
necessity of not being so short as otherwise might
peradventure be desired. Charity Mistaken is short,
I grant, and yet very full and large, for as much as
concerned his design, which you see was not to treat of
particular controversies in religion, no not so much as
to debate whether or no the Roman church be the only
true church of Christ, which indeed would have required
a large volume, as I have understood there was one
then coming forth, if it had not been prevented by the
treatise of Charity Mistaken, which seemed to make
the other intended work a little less seasonable at that
time. But Charity Mistaken proves only in general
out of some universal principles, well backed and made
good by choice and solid authorities, that of two dis-
agreeing in points of faith, one only without repentance
can be saved ; which aim exacted no great bulk. And
as for D. Potter's Answer, even that also is not so short
as it may seem. For if his marginal notes, printed in

His Preface to the Reader. 47

a small letter, were transferred into the text, the book
would appear to be of some bulk : though indeed it
might have been very short, if he had kept himself to
the point treated by Charity Mistaken, as shall be
declared anon. But, contrarily, because the question
debated betwixt Charity Mistaken and D. Potter, is a
point of the highest consequence that can be imagined;
and, in regard that there is not a more pernicious heresy,
or rather indeed ground of atheism, than a persuasion
that men of different religions may be saved, if other-
wise, forsooth, they lead a kind of civil and moral life :
I conceive that my chief endeavour was not to be
employed in answering D. Potter ; but that it was
necessary to handle the question itself somewhat at
large, and not only to prove in general that both pro-
testants and catholics cannot be saved ; but to shew
also, that salvation cannot be hoped for out of the
catholic Roman church ; and yet withal, not to omit to
answer all the particulars of D. Potter's book, which
may any ways import. To this end I thought it fit to
divide my Reply into two parts : in the former whereof,
the main question is handled by a continued discourse,
without stepping aside to confute the particulars of
D. Potter's Answer ; though yet so, as that even in
this first part I omit not to answer such passages of
his, as I find directly in my way, and naturally belong
to the points whereof I treat : and, in the second part,
I answer D. Potter's treatise, section by section, as they
lie in order. I here therefore entreat the reader, that
if he heartily desire satisfaction in this so important
question, he do not content himself with that which I
say to D. Potter in my second part, but that he take
the first before him, either all, or at least so much as
may serve most to his purpose of being satisfied in those
doubts which press him most. For which purpose, I

48 The Author of Charity Maintained,

have caused a table of the chapters of the first part,
together with their titles and arguments, to be prefixed
before vaj Reply.

7. " This was then a chief reason why I could not
be very short : but yet there wanted not also divers
other causes of the same effect. For there are so
several kinds of protestants, through the difference of
tenets which they hold, as that if a man convince but
one kind of them, the rest will conceive themselves to
be as truly unsatisfied, and even unspoken to, as if
nothing had been said therein at all. As for example :
some hold a necessity of a perpetual visible church, and
some hold no such necessity. Some of them hold it
necessary to be able to prove it distinct from ours ;
and others, that their business is dispatched, when they
have proved ours to have been always visible ; for then
they will conceive that theirs hath been so : and the
like may be truly said of very many other particulars.
Besides, it is D. Potter's fashion (wherein as he is very
far from being the first, so I pray God he prove the last
of that humour) to touch in a word many trivial old
objections, which, if they be not all answered, it will
and must serve the turn, to make the ignorant sort of
men believe and brag, as if some main unanswerable
matter had been subtilly and purposely omitted : and
every body knows, that some objection may be very
plausibly made in few words, the clear and solid answer
whereof will require more leaves of paper than one.
And, in particular, D. Potter doth couch his corruption
of authors within the compass of so few lines, and with
so great confusedness and fraud, that it requires much
time, pains, and paper, to open them so distinctly, as
that they may appear to every man's eye. It was also
necessary to shew what D. Potter omits in Charity
Mistaken, and the importance of what is omitted ; and

His Preface to the Reader. 49

sometimes to set down the very words themselves that
are omitted : all which could not but add to the quantity
of my Reply. And as for the quality thereof, I desire
thee, good reader, to believe, that whereas nothing is
more necessary than books for answering of books ; yet
I was so ill furnished in this kind, that I was forced
to omit the examination of divers authors cited by
D. Potter, merely upon necessity ; though I did very
well perceive, by most apparent circumstances, that I
must probably have been sure enough to find them
plainly misalleged, and much wronged : and for the
few which are examined, there hath not wanted some
difficulty to do it. For the times are not for all men
alike ; and D. Potter hath much advantage therein.
But truth is truth, and will ever be able to justify
itself in the midst of all difficulties which may occur.
As for me, when I allege protestant writers, as well
domestical as foreign, I willingly and thankfully ac-
knowledge myself obliged for divers of them to the
author of the book entitled. The Protestant's Apology
for the Roman Church, who calls himself John Brerely;
whose care, exactness, and fidelity, is so extraordinary
great, as that he doth not only cite the books, but the
editions also, with the place and time of their printing,
yea, and often the very page and line where the words
are to be had. And if you happen not to find what he
cites, yet suspend your judgment till you have read the
corrections placed at the end of his book ; though it be
also true, that, after all diligence and faithfulness on
his behalf, it was not in his power to amend all the
faults of the prints : in which prints we have difficulty
enough for many evident reasons, which must needs
occur to any prudent man.

8. " And forasmuch as concerns the manner of my
Reply, I have procured to do it without all bitterness

CHILLINGWORTH, VOL. I. E

50 The Author of Charity Maintained,

or gall of invective vrords, both for as much as may im-
port either protestants in general, or D. Potter's person
in particular ; unless, for example, he will call it bitter-
ness for me to term a gross impertinency a sleight, or
a corruption, by those very names, without which I do
not know how to express the things : and yet therein
I can truly affirm, that I have studied how to deliver
them in the most moderate way, to the end I might
give as little offence as possibly I could, without be-
traying the cause. And if any unfit phrase may per-
ad venture have escaped my pen, (as I hope none hath,)
it was beside and against my intention ; though I
must needs profess, that D. Potter gives so many and
so just occasions of being round with him, as that per-
haps some will judge me to have been rather remiss
than moderate. But since in the very title of my Re-
ply I profess to maintain charity, I conceive the excess
will be more excusable amongst all kinds of men, if it
fall to be in mildness, than if it had appeared in too
much zeal. And if D. Potter have a mind to charge
me with ignorance, or any thing of that nature, I can
and will ease him of that labour, by acknowledging in
myself as many and more personal defects than he can
heap upon me. Truth only, and sincerity, I so much
value and profess, as that he shall never be able to
prove the contrary in any one least passage or particle
against me.

9. " In the third and last place, I have thought fit
to express myself thus : — If D. Potter or any other re-
solve to answer my Reply, I desire that he will ob-
serve some things which may tend to his own reputa-
tion, the saving of my unnecessary pains, and especially
to the greater advantage of truth. I wish then that
he would be careful to consider wherein the point of
every difficulty consists, and not impertinently to shoot

His Preface to the Reader. 51

at rovers, and affectedly mistake one thing for another.
As for example, to what purpose (for as much as concerns
the question between D. Potter and Charity Mistaken)
doth he so often and seriously labour to prove, that faith
is not resolved into the authority of the church, as into
the formal object and motive thereof? or that all
points of faith are contained in scripture? or that
the church cannot make new articles of faith ? or that
the church of Rome, as it signifies that particular
church or diocese, is not all one with the universal
church? or that the pope as a private doctor may
err ? With many other such points as will easily ap-
pear in their proper places. It will also be neces-
sary for him not to put certain doctrines upon us,
from which he knows we disclaim as much as him-
self.

10. "I must, in like manner, entreat him not to re-
cite my reasons and discourses by halves, but to set
them down faithfully and entirely, for as much as in
very deed concerns the whole substance of the thing in
question ; because the want sometime of one word
may chance to make void or lessen the force of the
whole argument. And I am the more solicitous about
giving this particular caveat, because I find how ill he
hath complied with the promise which he made in his
Preface to the Reader, not to omit without answer any
one thing of moment in all the discourse of Charity
Mistaken. Neither will this course be a cause that
his rejoinder grow too large, but it will be occasion of
brevity to him, and free me also from the pains of set-
ting down all the words which he omits, and himself
of demonstrating that what he omitted was not mate-
rial. Nay, I will assure him, that if he keep himself
to the point of every difficulty, and not weary the rea-
der, and overcharge his margent with unnecessary quo-

E 2

52 The Author of Charity Maintained,

tations of authors in Greek and Latin, and sometime
also in Italian and French, together with proverbs,
sentences of poets, and such grammatical stuff, nor
affect to cite a multitude of our catholic school divines
to no purpose at all ; his book will not exceed a com-
petent size, nor will any man in reason be offended
with that length which is regulated by necessity.
Again, before he come to set down his answer, or pro-
pose his arguments, let him consider very well what
may be replied, and whether his own objections may
not be retorted against himself, as the reader will per-
ceive to have happened often to his disadvantage in my
Reply against him. But especially I expect, and truth
itself exacts at his hand, that he speak clearly and dis-
tinctly, and not seek to walk in darkness, so to delude
and deceive his reader, now saying, and then denying,
and always speaking with such ambiguity, as that his
greatest care may seem to consist in a certain art to
find a shift, as his occasions might chance either now
or hereafter to require, and as he might fall out to be
urged by diversity of several arguments. And to the
end it may appear that I deal plainly, as I would have
him also do, I desire that he declare himself concerning
these points.

11. " First. Whether our Saviour Christ have not
always had, and be not ever to have, a visible true
church on earth ? And whether the contrary doctrine
be not a damnable heresy ?

12. '' Secondly. What visible church there was be-
fore Luther, disagreeing from the Roman church, and
agreeing with the pretended church of protestants ?

13. " Thirdly. Since he will be forced to grant, that
there can be assigned no visible true church of Christ,
distinct from the church of Rome, and such churches
as agreed with her when Luther first appeared ; whether

His Preface to the Reader. 53

it doth not follow, that she hath not erred fundamen-
tally ; because every such error destroys the nature
and being of the church, and so our Saviour Christ
should have had no visible church on earth.

14. " Fourthly. If the Roman church did not fall
into any fundamental error, let him tell us how it can
be damnable to live in her communion, or to maintain
errors, which are known and confessed not to be funda-
mental or damnable.

15. " Fifthly. If her errors were not damnable,
nor did exclude salvation, how can they be excused
from schism who forsook her communion upon pretence
of errors which were not damnable ?

16. " Sixthly. If D. Potter have a mind to say that
her errors are damnable or fundamental, let him do us
so much charity, as to tell us in particular what those
fundamental errors be. But he must still remember,
(and myself must be excused for repeating it,) that if
he say the Roman church erred fundamentally, he
will not be able to shew that Christ our Lord had any
visible church on earth when Luther appeared : and
let him tell us how protestants had, or can have, any
church which was universal, and extended herself to
all ages, if once he grant that the Roman church ceased
to be the true church of Christ ; and, consequently,
how they can hope for salvation if they deny it to
us.

17. ** Seventhly. Whether any one error maintained
against any one truth, though never so small in itself,
yet sufficiently propounded as testified or revealed by
Almighty God, do not destroy the nature and unity of
faith, or at least is not a grievous offence excluding
salvation ?

18. " Eighthly. If this be so, how can Lutherans,
Calvinists, Zuinglians, and all the rest of disagreeing

54 The Author of Charity Maintained,

protestants, hope for salvation, since it is manifest that
some of them must needs err against some such truth
as is testified by Almighty God, either fundamental, or
at least not fundamental ?

19. " Ninthly. We constantly urge and require to
have a particular catalogue of such points as he calls
fundamental ; a catalogue, I say, in particular, and not
only some general definition or description, wherein
protestants may perhaps agree, though we see that
they differ when they come to assign what points in
particular be fundamental ; and yet upon such a parti-
cular catalogue much depends : as for example, in par-
ticular, whether or no a man doth not err in some
points fundamental or necessary to salvation? and
whether or no Lutherans, Calvinists, and the rest, do
disagree in fundamentals ? which if they do, the same
heaven cannot receive them all.

20. " Tenthly and lastly. I desire that in answer-
ing to these points he would let us know distinctly
what is the doctrine of the protestant English church
concerning them, and what he utters only as his own
private opinion.

^1, " These are the questions which for the pre-
sent I find it fit and necessary for me to ask of D. Pot-
ter, or any other who will defend his cause or impugn
ours. And it will be in vain to speak vainly, and to
tell me that a fool may ask more questions in an hour
than a wise man can answer in a year ; with such idle
proverbs as that : for I ask but such questions as for
which he gives occasion in his book, and where he de-
clares not himself but after so ambiguous and confused
a manner, as that truth itself can scarce tell how to
convince him so, but that with ignorant and ill-judging
men he will seem to have somewhat left to say for
himself, though papists (as he calls them) and puritans

His Preface to the Reader. 55

should press him contrary ways at the same time : and
these questions concern things also of high importance,
as whereupon the knowledge of God's church, and true
religion, and consequently salvation of the soul depends.
And now, because he shall not tax me with being
like those men in the gospel, whom our blessed Lord
and Saviour charged with laying heavy burdens upon
other men's shoulders, who yet would not touch them
with their finger ; I oblige myself to answer, upon any
demand of his, both to all these questions, if he find
that I have not done it already, and to any other, con-
cerning matter of faith, that he shall ask. And I will
tell him very plainly what is catholic doctrine and
what is not, that is, what is defined or what is not de-
fined, and rests but in discussion among divines.

22. " And it will be here expected that he perform
these things as a man who professeth learning should
do ; not flying from questions which concern things as
they are considered in their own nature, to accidental
or rare circumstances of ignorance, incapacity, want of
means to be instructed, erroneous conscience, and the
like ; which being very various and different, cannot be
well comprehended under any general rule. But in
delivering general doctrines, we must consider things as
they be ex natura rei, or per se loquendo, (as divines
speak,) that is, according to their natures, if all circum-
stances concur proportionable thereunto. As for ex-
ample, some may for a time have invincible ignorance
even of some fundamental article of faith, through want
of capacity, instruction, or the like ; and so not offend
either in such ignorance or error ; and yet we must
absolutely say, that error in any one fundamental point
is damnable ; because so it is, if we consider things in
themselves abstracting from accidental circumstances
in particular persons : as contrarily if some man judge

E 4

56 The Author of Chanty Maintained^

some act of virtue or some indifferent action to be a
sin, in him it is a sin indeed, by reason of his erro-
neous conscience ; and yet we ought not to say abso-
lutely that virtuous or indifferent actions are sins ;
and in all sciences we must distinguish the general
rules from their particular exceptions. And therefore
w^hen, for example, he answers to our demand, whether
he hold that catholics may be saved, or whether their
pretended errors be fundamental and damnable ? he is
not to change the state of the question, and have re-
course to ignorance, and the like ; but to answer con-
cerning the errors being considered what they are apt to
be in themselves, and as they are neither increased nor
diminished by accidental circumstances.

23. " And the like I say of all the other points, to
which I once again desire an answer without any of these
or the like ambiguous terms, in some sort, in some sense,
in some degree, which may be explicated afterward, as
strictly or largely as may best serve his turn ; but let
him tell us roundly and particularly in what sort, in
what sense, in what degree he understands those and
the like obscure mincing phrases. If he proceed solidly
after this manner, and not by way of mere words, more
like a preacher to a vulgar auditory than like a learned
man with a pen in his hand, thy patience shall be less
abused, and truth will also receive more right. And
since we have already laid the grounds of the question,
much may be said hereafter in few words, if (as I said)
he keep close to the real point of every difficulty, witTi-
out wandering into impertinent disputes, or multiplying
vulgar and threadbare objections and arguments, or la-
bouring to prove what no man denies, or making a
vain ostentation by citing a number of schoolmen,
which every puny brought up in schools is able to do ;
and if he cite his authors with such sincerity, as no time

His Preface to the Header. 57

need be spent in opening his corruptions ; and, finally,
if he set himself at work with this consideration, that
we are to give a most strict account to a most just and
impartial Judge, of every period, line, and word that
passeth under our pen. For if at the latter day we
shall be arraigned for every idle word which is spoken,
so much more will that be done for every idle word
which is written, as the deliberation wherewith it pass-
eth makes a man guilty of more malice ; and as the
importance of the matter which is treated of in books
concerning true faith and religion, without which no
soul can be saved, makes a man's errors more mate-
rial than they would be if the question were but of
toys."

THE

ANSWER TO THE PREP^ACE

Ad §. 1 and 2. If beginnings be oniinous, (as they
say they are,) D. Potter hath cause to look for great
store of uningenuous dealing from you ; the very first
words you speak of him, viz. that he hath not so much
as once truly and really fallen upon the point in ques-
tion, being a most vmjust and immodest imputation.

2. For, first. The point in question vi^as not that
which you pretend. Whether both papists and protest-
ants can be saved in their several professions ? but.
Whether you may without uncharitableness affirm,
that protestancy unrepented destroys salvation ? And
that this is the very question is most apparent and
unquestionable, both from the title of Charity Mistaken,
and from the arguments of the three first chapters
of it, and from the title of your own Reply. And
therefore if D. Potter had joined issue with his adver-
sary only thus far, and, not meddling at all with pa-
pists, but leaving them to stand or fall to their own
Master, had proved protestants living and dying so ca-
pable of salvation, I cannot see how it could justly be
charged upon him, that he had not once truly and
really fallen upon the point in question. Neither may
it be said, that your question here and mine are in ef-
fect the same, seeing it is very possible that the true
answer to the one might have been affirmative, and to
the other negative. For there is no incongruity, but
it may be true, that you and we cannot both be saved ;

Answer to the Preface of the Author, 4*c. 59

and yet as true, that without uncharitableness you
cannot pronounce us damned. For, all ungrounded
and unwarrantable sentencing men to damnation is ei-
ther in a propriety of speech uncharitable, or else (which
for my purpose is all one) it is that which protestants
mean, when they say, papists for damning them are
uncharitable. And, therefore, though the author of
C. M. had proved as strongly as he hath done weakly,
that one heaven could not receive protestants and pa-
pists both ; yet certainly, it was very hastily and un-
warrantably, and therefore uncharitably concluded, that
protestants were the part that was to be excluded . As,
though Jews and Christians cannot both be saved, yet
a Jew cannot justly, and therefore not charitably, pro-
nounce a Christian damned.

.S. But then, secondly, to shew your dealing with him
very injurious ; I say, he doth speak to this very ques-
tion very largely and very effectually ; as by confront-
ing his work and Charity M. together will presently
appear. Charity M. proves, you say in general, that
" there is but one church." D. Potter tells him his
labour is lost in proving the unity of the catholic
church, whereof there is no doubt or controversy : and
herein, I hope, you will grant he answers right and to
the purpose. C. M. proves, you say, secondly, that " all
Christians are obliged to hearken to the church." D.
Potter answers, " It is true : yet not absolutely in all
things, but only when she commands those things
which God doth not countermand." And this also, I
hope, is to his purpose, though not to yours. C. M.
proves, you say, thirdly, that " the church must be ever
visible and infallible." For her visibility, D. Potter
denies it not ; and as for her infallibility, he grants it in
fundamentals, but not in superstructures. C. M. proves,
you say, fourthly, that " to separate one's self from the

60 Answer to the Preface of

church's communion is schism." D. Potter grants it,
with this exception, unless there be necessary cause to
do so ; unless the conditions of her communion be ap-
parently unlawful. C. M. proves, you say, lastly, that
" to dissent from her doctrine is heresy, though it be
in points never so few and never so small ; and there-
fore, that the distinction of points fundamental and un-
fundamental, as it is applied by protestants, is wholly
vain." This D. Potter denies ; shews the reasons
brought for it weak and unconcluding ; proves the con-
trary, by reasons unanswerable : and therefore, that
the distinction of points into fundamental and not
fundamental, as it is applied by protestants, is very good.
Upon these grounds, you say, C. M. clearly evinces,
that " any least difference in faith cannot stand with
salvation ; and therefore seeing catholics and protest-
ants disagree in very many points of faith, they both
cannot hope to be saved without repentance ;" you must
mean, without an explicit and particular repentance,
and dereliction of their errors ; for so CM. hath de-
clared himself, (p. 14.) where he hath these words :
" We may safely say, that a man who lives in protest-
ancy, and is so far from repenting it, as that he will
not so much as acknowledge it to be a sin, though he
be sufficiently informed thereof," &c. From whence it
is evident, that in his judgment there can be no re-
pentance of an error without acknowledging it to be
a sin. And to this D. Potter justly opposes; that
" both sides, by the confession of both sides, agree in
more points than are simply and indispensably neces-
sary to salvation, and differ only in such as are not pre-
cisely necessary : that it is very possible a man may die
in error, and yet die with repentance, as for all his sins
of ignorance, so, in that number, for the errors in which
he dies ; with a repentance though not explicit and

The Author of Charity Maintained, 61

particular, which is not simply required, yet implicit
and general, which is sufficient : so that he cannot but
hope, considering the goodness of God, that the truths
retained on both sides, especially those of the neces-
sity of repentance from dead works and faith in Jesus
Christ, if they be put in practice, may be an anti-
dote against the errors held on either side ; to such he
means, and says, as being diligent in seeking truth,
and desirous to find it, yet miss of it through human
frailty, and die in error." If you will but attentively
consider and compare the undertaking of C. M. and
D. Potter's performance in all these points, I hope you
will be so ingenuous as to acknowledge, that you have
injured him much, in imputing tergiversation to him,
and pretending, that through his whole book he hath
not once truly and really fallen upon the point in ques-
tion. Neither may you or CM. conclude him from
hence (as covertly you do) an enemy to souls, by de-
ceiving them with ungrounded false hopes of salvation ;
seeing the hope of salvation cannot be ungrounded,
which requires and supposes belief and practice of all
things absolutely necessary unto salvation, and repent-
ance of those sins and errors which we fall into by
human frailty : nor a friend to indifferency in religion,
seeing he gives them only hope of pardon of errors who
are desirous, and, according to the proportion of their
opportunities and abilities, industrious to find the truth;
or at least truly repentant that they have not been so.
Which doctrine is very fit to excite men to a constant
and impartial search of truth, and very far from teach-
ing them that it is indifferent what religion they are
of; and, without all controversy, very honourable to
the goodness of God, with which how it can consist,
not to be satisfied with his servants' true endeavours to
know his will, and do it, without full and exact per-

6^ Answer to the Preface of

formance, I leave it to you and all good men to
judge.

4. As little justice methinks you shew, in quarrelling
with him for descending to the particular disputes
here mentioned by you. For to say nothing, that
many of these questions are immediately and directly
pertinent to the business in hand, as the 1, % 3, 5, 6,
and all of them fall in of themselves into the stream
of his discourse, and are not drawn in by him, and
besides are touched for the most part rather than
handled ; to say nothing of all this, you know right
well, if he conclude you erroneous in any one of all
these, be it but in the communion in one kind, or the
language of your service, the infallibility of your church
is evidently overthrown : and this being done, I hope
there will be " no such necessity of hearkening to her
in all things : it will be very possible to separate from
her communion in some things, without schism ; and
from her doctrine, so far as it is erroneous, without
heresy : then all that she proposes will not be, eo ipso,
fundamental, because she proposes it ;" and ^o presently
all Charity Mistaken will vanish into smoke and clouds
and nothing.

5. You say he was loath to affirm plainly, that ge-
nerally both catholics and protestants may be saved :
which yet is manifest he doth affirm plainly of pro-
testants throughout his book ; and of erring papists,
that " have sincerely sought the truth, and failed of it,
and die with a general repentance" (p. 77, 78). And
yet you deceive yourself if you conceive he had any
other necessity to do so, but only that he thought it
true. For we may and do pretend, that before Luther
there were many true churches beside the Roman,
which agreed not with her : in particular, the Greek
church. So that what you say is evidently true, is in-

The Authw of Chanty Maintained. 63

deed evidently false. Besides, if he had any necessity
to make use of you in this matter, he needed not for
this end to say, that now in your church salvation may
be had, but only, that before Luther's time it might be ;
then vrhen your means of knovi^ing the truth w^ere not
so great, and when your ignorance might be more in-
vincible, and therefore more excusable. So that you
may see, if you please, it is not for ends, but for the love
of truth, that we are thus charitable to you.

6. Neither is it material that these particulars he
speaks against are not fundamental errors ; for though
they be not destructive of salvation, yet the conviction
of them may be, and is, destructive enough of his ad-
versaries' assertion ; and if you be the man I take you
for, you will not deny they are so. For certainly no
consequence can be more palpable than this ; The
church of Rome doth err in this or that, therefore it is
not infallible. And this perhaps you perceived your-
self, and therefore demanded not. Since they be not fun-
damental, what imports it whether we hold them or no,
simply : but, for as much as concerns our possibility to
be saved. As if we were not bound by the love of God
and the love of truth to be zealous in the defence of all
truths that are any way profitable, though not simply
necessary to salvation ! or, as if any good man could
satisfy his conscience without being so affected and re-
solved ! our Saviour himself having assured us, that
he that shall break one of his least commandments,
(some whereof you pretend are concerning venial sins,
and consequently the keeping of them not necessary to
salvation,) and shall so teach men, shall he called the
least in the kingdom of heaven^,

7. But then it imports very much, though not for
the possibility that you may be saved, yet for the pro-

^ Matt. V. 19.

64 j4nswer to the Preface of

bability that you will be so: because the holding of
these errors, though it did not merit, might yet occasion
damnation : as the doctrine of indulgences may take
away the fear of purgatory, and the doctrine of purga-
tory the fear of hell ; as you well know it does too
frequently. So that though a godly man might be
saved with these errors, yet by means of them many
are made vicious, and so damned. By them, I say,
though not for them. No godly layman, who is verily
persuaded that there is neither impiety nor superstition
in the use of your Latin service shall be damned, I hope,
for being present at it; yet the want of that devo-
tion which the frequent hearing the offices understood
might happily beget in them, the want of that instruc-
tion and edification which it might afford them, may very
probably hinder the salvation of many which might
otherwise have been saved. Besides, though the mat-
ter of an error may be only something profitable, not
necessary, yet the neglect of it may be a damnable sin ;
as, not to regard venial sins is in the doctrine of your
schools mortal. Lastly, as venial sins, you say, dispose
men to mortal; so the erring from some profitable,
though lesser truth, may dispose a man to error in
greater matters : as for example, the belief of the
pope's infallibility is, I hope, not unpardonably damn-
able to every one that holds it ; yet if it be a falsehood,
(as most certainly it is,) it puts a man into a very con-
gruous disposition to believe Antichrist, if he should
chance to get into that see.

8. Ad §. 3. In his distinctions of points funda-
mental and not fundamental, he may seem, you say, to
have touched the point, but does not so indeed : because,
though he says there are some points so fundamental
as that all are obliged to believe them explicitly, yet
he tells you not whether a man may disbelieve any

The Author of Charity Maintained. 65

other points of faith, which are sufficiently presented
to his understanding, as truths revealed by Almighty
God." Touching which matter of sufficient proposal,
I beseech you to come out of the clouds, and tell us
roundly and plainly, what you mean by " points of
faith sufficiently propounded to a man's understanding,
as truths revealed by God." Perhaps you mean such
as the person to whom they are proposed understands
sufficiently to be truths revealed by God. But how
then can he possibly choose but believe them ? or how
is it not an apparent contradiction, that a man should
disbelieve what himself understands to be a truth, or
any Christian what he understands or but believes to
be testified by God? D. Potter might well think it
superfluous to tell you this is damnable ; because
indeed it is impossible. And yet one may very well
think, by your saying, as you do hereafter, that " the
impiety of heresy consists in calling God's truth in
question," that this should be your meaning. Or do
you esteem all those things sufficiently presented to his
understanding as Divine truths, which by you, or any
other man, or any company of men whatsoever, are
declared to him to be so ? I hope you will not say so ;
for this were to oblige a man to believe all the churches,
and all the men in the world, whensoever they pretend
to propose Divine revelations. D. Potter, I assure you
from him, would never have told you this neither. Or
do you mean by " sufficiently propounded as Divine
truths," all that your church propounds for such ? That
you may not neither ; for the question between us is
this : Whether your church's proposition be a sufficient
proposition ? And therefore to suppose this, is to sup-
pose the question, which you know in reasoning is
always a fault. Or, lastly, do you mean (for I know
not else what possibly you can mean) by " sufficiently

CHILLINGWORTH, VOL. I. F

66 Answer to the Preface of

presented to his understanding, as revealed by God,"
that which, all things considered, is so proposed to him,
that he might, and should, and would believe it to be
true and revealed by God, were it not for some volun-
tary and avoidable fault of his own, that interposeth it-
self between his understanding and the truth presented to
it ? This is the best construction that I can make of your
words ; and if you speak of truths thus proposed and
rejected, let it be as damnable as you please to deny or
disbelieve them. But then I cannot but be amazed to
hear you say, that D. Potter never tells you whether
there be any other points of faith besides those which
we are bound to believe explicitly, which a man may
deny or disbelieve, though they be sufficiently presented
to his understanding as truths revealed or testified by
Almighty God ; seeing the light itself is not more clear
than D. Potter's declaration of himself for the negative
in this question, p. 245 — 250 of his book : where he
treats at large of this very argument, beginning his
discourse thus : "It seems fundamental to the faith,
and for the salvation of every member of the church,
that he acknowledge and believe all such points of faith,
as whereof he may be convinced that they belong to
the doctrine of Jesus Christ." To this conviction he
requires three things : " clear revelation, sufficient pro-
position, and capacity and understanding in the hearer.
For want of clear revelation, he frees the church before
Christ and the disciples of Christ from any damnable
error, though they believed not those things which he
that should now deny were no Christian. To sufficient
proposition he requires two things : 1. That the points
be perspicuously laid open in themselves. 2. So for-
cibly, as may serve to remove reasonable doubts to the
contrary, and satisfy a teachable mind concerning it,
against the principles in which he hath been bred to

The Author of Charity Mai7itahied. 67

the contrary. This proposition," he says, " is not limited
to the pope or church, but extended to all means what-
soever, by which a man may be convinced in conscience
that the matter proposed is Divine revelation ; which
he professes to be done sufficiently, not only when his
conscience doth expressly bear witness to the truth ;
but when it would do so, if it were not choked and
blinded by some unruly and unmortified lust in the will:
the difference being not great between him that is wil-
fully blind, and him that knowingly gainsayeth the
truth. The third thing he requires is capacity and
ability to apprehend the proposal, and the reasons of
it : the want whereof excuseth fools and madmen, &c.
But where there is no such impediment, and the will
of God is sufficiently propounded, there," saith he, "he
that opposeth is convinced of error ; and he who is
thus convinced is an heretic ; and heresy is a work of
the flesh which excludeth from salvation" [he means
without repentance]. " And hence it followeth, that it
is fundamental to a Christian's faith, and necessary for
his salvation, that he believe all revealed truths of
God, whereof he may be convinced that they are from
God." This is the conclusion of D. Potter's discourse;
many passages whereof you take notice of in your
subsequent disputations, and make your advantage of
them. And therefore I cannot but say again, that it
amazeth me to hear you say that he declines this
question, and never tells you " whether or no there be
any other points of faith, which, being sufficiently
propounded as Divine revelations, may be denied and
disbelieved." He tells you plainly there are none such ;
and therefore you cannot say that he tells you not
whether there be any such. Again, it is almost as
strange to me, why you should say, this was the only
thing in question, " whether a man may deny or dis-

F 2

68 Answer to the Preface of

believe any point of faith, sufficiently presented to his
understanding as a truth revealed by God." For to
say that any thing is a thing in question, methinks, at
the first hearing of the vrords, imports, that it is by
some affirmed, and denied by others. Novr you affirm,
I grant, but vrhat protestant ever denied, that it was
a sin to give God the lie ? vrhich is the first and most
obvious sense of these vrords. Or vrhich of them ever
doubted, that to disbelieve is then a fault, v^^hen the
matter is so proposed to a man, that he might and
should, and vrere it not for his own fault, would believe
it ? Certainly, he that questions either of these, justly
deserves to have his wits called in question. Produce
any one protestant that ever did so, and I will give you
leave to say it is the only thing in question. But then
I must tell you, that your ensuing argument — viz. To
deny a truth witnessed by God is damnable ; but of two
that disagree, one must of necessity deny some such
truth, therefore one only can be saved — is built upon a
ground clean different from this postulate. For though
it be always a fault to deny what either I do know or
should know to be testified by God ; yet that which
by a cleanly conveyance you put in the place hereof,
to deny a truth witnessed by God simply^ without the
circumstance of being known or sufficiently proposed,
is so far from being certainly damnable, that it may
be many times done without any the least fault at all.
As if God should testify something to a man in the
Indies, I that had no assurance of this testification
should not be obliged to believe it. For in such cases
the rule of the law hath place. Idem est non esse et non
apparere ; not to be at all, and not to appear to me,
is to me all one. If I had not come and spoken unto
you, (saith our Saviour,) you had had 710 sin,

10. As little necessity is there for that which follows :

The Author of Chanty Maintained, 69

that " of two disagreeing in a matter of faith, one must
deny some such truth ;" whether by such you un-
derstand "testified at all by God," or, "testified or suffi-
ciently propounded." For it is very possible, the matter
in controversy may be such a thing where God hath
not at all declared himself, or not so fully and clearly
as to oblige all men to hold one way, and yet be so
overvalued by the parties in variance as to be esteemed
a matter of faith, and one of those things of which
our Saviour says. He that believeth not shall he
damned. Who sees not that it is possible two churches
may excommunicate and damn each other for keeping
Christmas ten days sooner or later, as well as Victor
excommunicated the churches of Asia for differing
from him about Easter-day? and yet I believe you
will confess, that God had not then declared himself
about Easter, nor hath now about Christmas, An-
ciently some good catholic bishops excommunicated and
damned others for holding there were antipodes ; and
in this question I would fain know on which side was
the sufficient proposal. The contra-remonstrants differ
from the remonstrants about the point of predetermi-
nation as a matter of faith ; I would know in this
thing also which way God hath declared himself,
whether for predetermination or against it. Stephen,
bishop of Rome, held it as a matter of faith and apo-
stolic tradition, that heretics gave true baptism ; others
there were, and they as good catholics as he, that held
that this was neither matter of faith nor matter of
truth. Justin Martyr and Irenaeus held the doctrine
of the millenaries as a matter of faith : and though
Justin Martyr deny it, yet you, I hope, will affirm,
that some good Christians held the contrary. St. Au-
gustin, I am sure, held the communicating of infants
as much apostolic tradition as the baptizing of them :

F 3

70 Ansiver to the Preface of

whether the bishop and the church of Rome of his time
held so too, or held otherwise, I desire you to determine.
But sure I am the church of Rome at this present
holds, the contrary. The same St. Austin held it
no matter of faith, that the bishops of Rome were
judges of appeals from all parts of the church catholic,
no not in major causes and major persons : whether the
bishop or church of Rome did then hold the contrary,
do you resolve me ; but now I am resolved that they
do so. In all these differences, the point in question
is esteemed and proposed by one side at least as a
matter of faith, and by the other rejected as not so :
and either this is to disagree in matters of faith, or
you will have no means to shew that we do disagree.
Now then, to shew you how weak and sandy the foun-
dation is, on which the whole fabric both of your book
and church depends, answer me briefly to this dilemma:
either in these oppositions, one of the opposite parts
erred damnably, and denied God's truth sufficiently
propounded, or they did not. If they did, then they
which do deny God's truth sufficiently propounded,
may go to heaven ; and then you are rash and un-
charitable in excluding us, though we were guilty of
this fault. If not, then there is no such necessity, that
of two disagreeing about a matter of faith, one should
deny God's truth sufficiently propounded : and so the
major and minor of your argument are proved false.
Yet, though they were as true as gospel, and as evident
as mathematical principles, the conclusion (so imperti-
nent is it to the premises) might still be false. For
that which naturally issues from these propositions is
not — therefore one only can be saved : but — therefore
one of them does something that is damnable. But
with what logic or what charity you can infer either
as the immediate production of the former premises,

The Author of Charity Maintamed. 71

or as a corollary from this conclusion — therefore one
only can be saved — I do not understand ; unless you
will pretend that this consequence is good — Such a one
doth something damnable, therefore he shall certainly
be damned : which whether it be not to overthrow the
article of our faith, which promises remission of sins
upon repentance, and consequently to ruin the gospel
of Christ, I leave it to the pope and the cardinals to deter-
mine. For if against this it be alleged, that no man
can repent of the sin wherein he dies ; this much I
have already stopped, by shewing, that if it be a sin of
ignorance, this is no way incongruous.

11. Ad §. 4. You proceed in sleighting and disgracing
your adversary, pretending his objections are mean and
vulgar, and such as have been answered a thousand
times. But if your cause were good, these arts would
be needless. For though some of his objections have
been often shifted, by men ^ that make a profession of
devising shifts and evasions to save themselves and
their religion from the pressure of truth, by men that
are resolved they will say something, though they can
say nothing to purpose ; yet I doubt not to make it
appear, that neither by others have they been truly and
really satisfied, and that the best answer you give them
is to call them mean and vulgar objections.

12. Ad J. 5. " But his pains might have been spared:
for the substance of his discourse is in a sermon of
Dr. Usher's, and confuted four years ago by Paulus

f I mean the divines of Doway; whose profession we have in
your Belgic Expurgatorius, p. 12. in censura Bertrami, in these
words : " Seeing in other ancient catholics we tolerate, extenuate,
and excuse very many errors, and devising some shift often deny
them, and put upon them a convenient sense when they are objected
to us in disputations and conflicts with our adversaries ; we see no
reason why Bertram may not deserve the same equity."

F 4

7^ Answer to the Preface of

Veridicus." It seems then, the substance of your Reply
is in Paulus Veridicus, and so your pains also might
well have been spared. But had there been no neces-
sity to help and piece out your confuting his arguments
with disgracing his person, (which yet you cannot do,)
you would have considered, that to them who compare
Dr. Potter's book and the archbishop's sermon, this
aspersion will presently appear a poor detraction, not
to be answered but scorned. To say nothing, that in
D. Potter, being to answer a book by express command
from royal authority, to leave any thing material unsaid,
because it had been said before, especially being spoken
at large, and without any relation to the discourse
which he was to answer, had been a ridiculous vanity
and fond prevarication.

13. Ad §. 6. In your sixth parag. I let all pass saving
only this : " that a persuasion that men of different re-
ligions" (you must mean, or else you speak not to the
point. Christians of divers opinions and communions)
"may be saved, is a most pernicious heresy, and even a
ground of atheism." What strange extractions chemis-
try can make^ I know not ; but sure I am^ he that by
reason would infer this conclusion — that there is no
God, from this ground — that God will save men in
different religions, must have a higher strain in logic
than you or I have hitherto made show of. In my
apprehension, the other part of the contradiction — that
there is a God, should much rather follow from it.
And whether contradictions will flow from the same
fountain, let the learned judge. Perhaps you will say,
you intended not to deliver here a positive and measured
truth, and which you expected to be called to account
for ; but only a high and tragical expression of your
just detestation of the wicked doctrine against which
you write : if you mean so, I let it pass ; only I am

The Author of Chanty Maintained, 73

to advertise the less wary reader, that passionate ex-
pressions and vehement asseverations are no arguments,
unless it be of the vreakness of the cause that is defended
by them, or the man that defends it. And to remember
you of what Boethius says of some such things as these
— Nubila mens est, hcBC ubi regnant. For my part,
I am not now in a passion ; neither will I speak one
word which I think I cannot justify to the full : and I
say, and will maintain, that to say that Christians of dif-
ferent opinions and communions (such, I mean, who
hold all those things that are simply necessary to
salvation) may not obtain pardon for the errors wherein
they die ignorantly by a general repentance, is so far
from being a ground of atheism, that to say the contrary
is to cross in diameter a main article of our creed, and
to overthrow the gospel of Christ.

14. §. 7 and 8. To the two next parag. I have but
two words to say. The one is, that I know no pro-
testants that hold it necessary to be able to prove a
perpetual visible church distinct from yours. Some
perhaps undertake to do so, as a matter of courtesy ;
but I believe you will be much to seek for any one that
holds it necessary. For though you say that Christ
hath promised there shall be a perpetual visible church,
yet you yourselves do not pretend that he hath pro-
mised there shall be histories and records always extant
of the professors of it in all ages ; nor that he hath any
where enjoined us to read those histories, that we may
be able to shew them.

15. The other is, that Brerely's great exactness,
which you magnify so and amplify, is no very certain
demonstration of his fidelity. A romance may be told
with as much variety of circumstances as a true
story.

16. Ad \, 9 and 10. Your desires that I would in this

74 Answer to the Preface of

rejoinder, avoid impertinences — not impose doctrines
upon you which you disclaim — set down the substance
of your reasons faithfully and entirely — not weary the
reader with unnecessary quotations — object nothing to
you which I can answer myself, or which may be re-
turned upon myself — and, lastly, (which you repeat
again in the end of your preface,) speak as clearly and
distinctly and univocally as possibly I can — are all very
reasonable, and shall be by me most punctually and
fully satisfied. Only I have reason to complain, that
you give us rules only, and not good example in keep-
ing them. For in some of these things I shall have
frequent occasion to shew, that Medice, cura teipsum,
may very justly be said unto you ; especially for
objecting what might very easily have been answered
by you, and may be very justly returned upon you.

17. To your ensuing demands, though some of them
be very captious and ensnaring, yet I will give you as
clear and plain and ingenuous answers as possibly I
can.

18. Ad §.11. To the first, then, about the perpetuity
of the visible church, my answer is — that I believe
our Saviour, ever since his ascension, hath had in some
place or other a visible true church on earth ; I mean
a company of men that professed at least so much
truth as was absolutely necessary for their salvation.
And I believe, that there will be somewhere or other
such a church to the world's end. But the contrary
doctrine I do at no hand believe to be a damnable
heresy.

19. Ad ^. 12. To the second, What visible church
there was before Luther disagreeing from the Roman ?
I answer, that before Luther there were many visible
churches in many things disagreeing from the Roman ;
but not that the whole catholic church disagreed from

The Author of Charity Maintained, 75

her, because she herself was a part of the whole, though
much corrupted. And to undertake to name a catho-
lic church disagreeing from her, is to make her no
part of it, which we do not, nor need not pretend.
And for men agreeing with protestants in all points,
we will then produce them, when you shall either prove
it necessary to be done — which you know we absolutely
deny — or when you shall produce a perpetual succession
of professors, which in all points have agreed with you,
and disagreed from you in nothing. But this my pro-
mise, to deal plainly with you, I conceive and so
intended it to be very like his, who undertook to drink
up the sea, upon condition that he to whom the promise
was made should first stop the rivers from running in.
For this unreasonable request which you make to us
is to yourselves so impossible, that in the next age after
the apostles you will never be able to name a man
whom you can prove to have agreed with you in all
things, nay, (if you speak of such whose works are
extant, and unquestioned,) whom we cannot prove to
have disagreed from you in many things. Which I
am so certain of, that I will venture my credit and my
life upon it.

20. Ad §. 13. To the third. Whether, seeing there
cannot be assigned any visible true church distinct from
the Roman, it follows not that she erred not fundamen-
tally ? I say, in our sense of the wordi fundamental, it
does follow. For if it be true that there was tlien no
church distinct from the Roman, then it must be either
because there was no church at all, which we deny ; or
because the Roman church was the whole church,
which we also deny ; or because she was a part of the
whole, which we grant. And if she were a true part
of the church, then she retained those truths which
were simply necessary to salvation, and held no errors

76 Answer to the Preface of

which were inevitably and unpardonably destructive of
it. For this is precisely necessary to constitute any
man or any church a member of the church catholic.
In our sense therefore of the vfOixA fundamental^ I hope
she erred not fundamentally, but in your sense of the
word I fear she did ; that is, she held something to be
Divine revelation which was not, something not to
be which was.

21. Ad §. 14. To the fourth, How it could be
damnable to maintain her errors, if they were not fun-
damental? I answer, 1. Though it were not damnable,
yet if it were a fault, it was not to be done. For a
venial sin with you is not damnable ; yet you say it
is not to be committed for the procuring any good :
Non est faciendum malum vel minimum, ut eveniat
honum vel maximum. It is damnable to maintain an
error against conscience, though the error in itself, and
to him that believes it, be not damnable. Nay, the
profession not only of an error, but even of a truth, if
not believed, when you think on it again, I believe you
will confess to be a mortal sin ; unless you will
say hypocrisy and simulation in religion is not so.
2. Though we say the errors of the Roman church
were not destructive of salvation, but pardonable even
to them that died in them, upon a general repentance ;
yet we deny not but in themselves they were damnable.
Nay, the very saying they were pardonable implies
they need pardon, and therefore in themselves were
damnable; damnable meritoriously, though not effect-
ually. As a poison may be deadly in itself, and yet not
kill him that together with the poison takes an antidote ;
or as felony may deserve death, and yet not bring it
on him that obtains the king's pardon.

22. Ad §. 15. To the fifth, How can they be excused
from schism who forsook her communion upon pretence

The Author of Charity Maintained, 77

of errors which were not damnable ? I answer, all that
we forsake in you is only the belief and practice and
profession of your errors. Hereupon you cast us out
of your communion ; and then, with a strange and con-
tradictious and ridiculous hypocrisy, complain that we
forsake it. As if a man should thrust his friend out
of doors, and then be offended at his departure. But
for us not to forsake the belief of your errors, having
discovered them to be errors, was impossible ; and
therefore to do so could not be damnable, believing
them to be errors. Not to forsake the practice and
profession of them, had been damnable hypocrisy ;
supposing that (which you vainly run away with, and
take for granted) those errors in themselves were not
damnable. Now to do so, and, as matters now stand,
not to forsake your communion, is apparently contra-
dictious ; seeing the condition of your communion is,
that we must profess to believe all your doctrines, not
only not to be damnable errors, (which will not content
you,) but also to be certain and necessary and revealed
truths. So that to demand why we forsook your
communion upon pretence of errors which are not
damnable, is in effect to demand why we forsook it
upon our forsaking it ? For to pretend that there are
errors in your church, though not damnable, is ipso
facto to forsake your communion, and to do that which
both in your account, and, as you think, in God's
account, puts him that does so out of your communion.
So that either you must free your church from requiring
the belief of any error whatsoever, damnable and not
damnable, or, whether you will or no, you must free
us from schism : for schism there cannot be in leaving
your communion, unless we were obliged to continue
in it. Man cannot be obliged by man, but to what
either formally or virtually he is obliged by God ; for,

78 Answer to the Preface of

all just power is from God. God, the eternal truth,
neither can nor will oblige us to believe any the least
and the most innocent falsehood to be a Divine truth,
that is, to err ; nor to profess a known error, which is
to lie. So that if you require the belief of any error
among the conditions of your communion, our obligation
to communicate with you ceaseth, and so the imputa-
tion of schism to us vanisheth into nothing ; but lies
heavy vipon you for making our separation from you
just and necessary, by requiring unnecessary and un-
lawful conditions of your communion. Hereafter,
therefore, I entreat you, let not your demand be, how
could we forsake your communion without schism,
seeing you erred not damnably ? but, how could we do
so without schism, seeing you erred not at all : which
if either you do prove, or we cannot disprove it, we
will (I at least will for my part) return to your com-
munion, or subscribe myself schismatic. In the mean
time, /mevcojULev cocTrep ear/Jiev.

2S, Yet notwithstanding all your errors, we do not
renounce your communion totally and absolutely, but
only leave communicating with you in the practice
and profession of your errors. The trial whereof will
be to propose some form of worshipping God, taken
wholly out of scripture ; and herein if we refuse to
join with you, then, and not till then, may you justly
say we have utterly and absolutely abandoned your
communion.

24. Ad §.16. Your sixth demand I have already
satisfied in my answers to the second and the fourth, and
in my reply ad §. 2, toward the end. And though
you say your repeating must be excused, yet I dare
not be so confident, and therefore forbear it.

25. Ad §. 17. To the seventh. Whether error against
any one truth sufficiently propounded as testified by

The Author of Charity Maintained. 79

God, destroy not the nature and unity of faith, or at
least is not a grievous offence, excluding salvation ?
I answer, if you suppose, as you seem to do, the pro-
position so sufficient, that the party to whom it is made
is convinced that it is from God, so that the denial of
it involves also with it the denial of God's veracity, any
such error destroys both faith and salvation. But if
the proposal be only so sufficient, not that the party to
whom it is made is convinced, but only that he should,
and but for his own fault would have been conv inced
of the Divine verity of the doctrine proposed ; the crime
then is not so great ; for the belief of God's veracity
may still consist with such an error. Yet a fault I
confess it is, and (without repentance) damnable, if, all
circumstances considered, the proposal be sufficient.
But then I must tell you, that the proposal of the pre-
sent Roman church is only pretended to be sufficient
for this purpose, but is not so ; especially all the rays
of the Divinity, which they pretend to shine so con-
spicuously in her proposals, being so darkened and even
extinguished with a cloud of contradiction, from scrip-
ture, reason, and the ancient church.

26. Ad J. 18. To the eighth. How of disagreeing
protestants, both parts may hope for salvation, seeing
some of them must needs err against some truth testi-
fied by God ? I answer, the most disagreeing protest-
ants that are, yet thus far agree ; 1. That those books
of Scripture which were never doubted of in the church
are the undoubted word of God, and a perfect rule of
faith. 2. That the sense of them, which God intended,
whatsoever it is, is certainly true ; so that they believe
implicitly even those very truths against which they
err ; and why an implicit faith in Christ and his word
should not suffice as well as an implicit faith in your
church, I have desired to be resolved by many of your

80 Answer to the Preface of

side, but never could. 3. That they are to use their
best endeavours to believe the scripture in the true
sense, and to live according to it. This if they perform
(as I hope many on all sides do) truly and sincerely, it
is impossible but that they should believe aright in all
things necessary to salvation ; that is, in all those
things which appertain to the covenant between God
and man in Christ ; for so much is not only plainly,
but frequently contained in scripture. And believing
aright touching the covenant, if they for their parts
perform the condition required of them, which is sin-
cere obedience, why should they not expect that God
will perform his promise, and give them salvation?
For, as for other things^ which lie without the covenant,
and are therefore less necessary, if by reason of the
seeming conflict which is oftentimes between scripture
and reason and authority on the one side, and scrip-
ture, reason, and authority on the other ; if by reason
of the variety of tempers, abilities, educations, and un-
avoidable prejudices, whereby men's understandings
are variously formed and fashioned, they do embrace
several opinions, whereof some must be erroneous ;
to say, that God will damn them for such errors, who
are lovers of him, and lovers of truth, is to rob man of
his comfort and God of his goodness ; it is to make
man desperate, and God a tyrant. But " they deny
truths testified by God, and therefore shall be damned."
— Yes, if they knew them to be thus testified by him,
and yet would deny them ; that were to give God the
lie, and questionless damnable. But if you should
deny a truth which God had testified but only to a
man in the Indies, (as I said before,) and this testifica-
tion you had never heard of, or at least had no sufficient
reason to believe that God had so testified, would not
you think it a hard case to be damned for such a

the Author of Charity Maintained. 81

denial ? Yet consider, I pray, a little more attentively,
the difference between them, and you will presently ac-
knowledge, the question between them is not at any
time, or in any thing, whether God says true or no ;
or whether he says this or no ; but, supposing he says
this, and says true, whether he means this or no. As
for example ; between Lutherans, Calvinists, and Zuin-
glians, it is agreed that Christ spake these words, T/iis
is my body ; and that whatsoever he meant in saying
so is true ; but what he meant, and how he is to be un-
derstood, that is the question. So that though some of
them deny a truth by God intended, yet you can with
no reason or justice accuse them of denying the truth
of God's testimony, unless you can plainly shew that
God hath declared, and that plainly and clearly, what
was his meaning in these words : I say plainly and
clearly ; for he that speaks obscurely and ambiguously,
and no where declares himself plainly, sure he hath no
reason to be much offended if he be mistaken. When,
therefore, you can shew, that in this and all other
their controversies, God hath interposed his testimony
on one side or other ; so that either they do see it and
w^ill not ; or, were it not for their own voluntary and
avoidable fault, might and should see it, and do not;
let all such errors be as damnable as you please to
make them. In the meanwhile, if they suffer them-
selves neither to be betrayed into their errors, nor kept
in them by any sin of their will ; if they do their best
endeavour to free themselves from all errors, and yet
fail of it through human frailty ; so well am I per-
suaded of the goodness of God, that if in me alone
should meet a confluence of all such errors of all
the protestants in the world, that were thus qualified,
I should not be so much afraid of them all, as I should
be to ask pardon for them. For, whereas that which

CHILLINGWORTH, VOL. I. G

82 Answer to the Preface of

you affright us with, of calling God's veracity in ques-
tion, is but a panic fear, a fault that no man thus qua-
lified is or can be guilty of; to ask pardon of simple
and purely involuntary errors is tacitly to imply, that
God is angry with us for them, and that were to im-
pute to him the strange tyranny of requiring brick
when he gives no straw ; of expecting to gather where
he strewed not ; to reap, where he sowed not ; of being
offended with us for not doing what he knows we can-
not do. This I say upon a supposition that they do
their best endeavours to know God's will and do it ;
which he that denies to be possible knows not what
he says ; for he says, in effect, that men cannot do what
they can do ; for to do what a man can do, is to do his
best endeavour. But because this supposition, though
certainly possible, is very rare and admirable ; I say,
secondly, that I am verily persuaded that God will not
impute errors to them as sins, who use such a measure
of industry, in finding truth, as human prudence and
ordinary discretion (their abilities and opportunities,
their distractions and hinderances, and all other things
considered) shall advise them unto, in a matter of such
consequence. But if herein also we fail, then our
errors begin to be malignant, and justly imputable, as
offences against God, and that love of his truth which
he requires in us. You will say then, that for those
erring protestants, which are in this case, which evi-
dently are far the greater part, they sin damnably in
erring, and therefore there is little hope of their salva-
tion. To which I answer, that the consequence of this
reason is somewhat strong against a protestant; but
much weakened by coming out of the mouth of a pa-
pist. For all sins with you are not damnable; and
therefore protestant errors might be sins, and yet not
damnable. But yet, out of courtesy to you, we will

the Author of Charity Maintained. 88

remove this rub out of your way ; and for the present
suppose them mortal sins : and is there then no hope of
salvation for him that commits them ? Not, you will
say, if he die in them without repentance ; and such
protestants you speak of, who without repentance die
in their errors. Yea, but what if they die in their er-
rors with repentance ? Then I hope you will have cha-
rity enough to think they may be saved. Charity
Mistaken^ takes it indeed for granted that this suppo-
sition is destructive of itself; and that it is impossible
and incongruous that a man should repent of those
errors wherein he dies, or die in those whereof he re-
pents. But it was wisely done of him to take it for
granted ; for most certainly he could not have spoken
one word of sense for the confirmation of it. For see-
ing protestants believe, as well as you, God's infinite
and most admirable perfections in himself, more than
most worthy of all possible love : seeing they believe,
as well as you, his infinite goodness to them, in creating
them of nothing; in creating them according to his
own image ; in creating all things for their use and
benefit ; in streaming down his favours on them every
moment of their lives ; in designing them, if they serve
him, to infinite and eternal happiness ; in redeeming
them, not with corruptible things, but the precious
blood of his beloved Son : seeing they believe, as well
as you, his infinite goodness and patience towards them,
in expecting their conversion, in wooing, alluring,
leading, and by all means which his wisdom can sug-
gest unto him, and man's nature is capable of, drawing
them to repentance and salvation : seeing they believe
these things as well as you, and, for aught you know,
consider them as much as you, (and if they do not, it is
not their religion, but they that are to blame,) — what can

^* In the place above quoted.
G 2

84 Answer to the Preface of

hinder but that the consideration of God's most infinite
goodness to them, and their own almost infinite wick-
edness against him, God's Spirit cooperating with them,
may raise them to a true and sincere and cordial love
of God ? And seeing sorroM^ for having injured or of-
fended the person beloved, or when we fear we may
have offended him, is the most natural effect of true
love ; what can hinder, but that love which hath oft-
times constrained them to lay down their lives for God,
(which our Saviour assures us is the noblest sacrifice
we can offer,) may produce in them an universal sorrow
for all their sins, both which they know they have com-
mitted, and which they fear they may have ? In which
number, their being negligent, or not dispassionate, or
not unprejudicate enough in seeking the truth, and the
effect thereof, their errors, if they be sins, cannot but
be comprised. In a word, what should hinder but
that that prayer — JDelicta sua quis intelligit ? Who
can understand his faults'^ Lord, cleanse thou me
from my secret sins — may be heard and accepted by
God, as well from a protestant that dies in some errors,
as from a papist that dies in some other sins of igno-
rance, which perhaps he might more easily have disco-
vered to be sins, than a protestant could his errors to
be errors ? As well from a protestant that held some
error, which (as he conceived) God's word, and his rea-
son, (which is also in some sort God's word,) led him
unto ; as from a Dominican, who perhaps took up his
opinion upon trust, not because he had reason to be-
lieve it true, but because it was the opinion of his
order ; for the same man, if he had light upon another
order, would in all probability have been of the other
opinion : for what else is the cause, that generally all
the Dominicans are of one opinion, and all the Jesuits
of the other ? I say, from a Dominican who took up

the Author of Charity Maintained. 85

his opinion upon trust ; and that such an opinion (if
we believe the writers of your order) as, if it be granted
true, it were not a point-matter what opinions any man
held, or what actions any man did ; for the best would
be as bad as the worst, and the worst as good as the
best. And yet such is the partiality of your hypocrisy,
that, of disagreeing papists, neither shall deny the truth
testified by God, but both may hope for salvation ; but
of disagreeing protestants, (though they differ in the
same thing,) one side must deny God's testimony, and
be incapable of salvation. That a Dominican through
culpable negligence, living and dying in his error, may
repent of it, though he knows it not; or be saved,
though he do not : but if a protestant do the very same
thing, in the very same point, and die in his error, his
case is desperate. The sum of all that hath been said
to this demand, is this : — 1. That no erring protestant
denies any truth testified by God, under this formality,
as testified by him ; nor which they know or believe to
be testified by him. And therefore it is an horrible ca-
lumny in you to say — they call God's veracity in ques-
tion : for God's vmdoubted and unquestioned veracity
is to them the ground why they do hold all they do
hold : neither do they hold any opinion so stiffly, but
they will forego it rather than this one — that all which
God says is true. 2. God hath not so clearly and
plainly declared himself in most of these things which
are in controversy between protestants, but that an
honest man, whose heart is right to God, and one that
is a true lover of God and of his truth, may, by reason
of the conflict of contrary reasons on both sides, very
easily, and therefore excusably mistake, and embrace
error for truth, and reject truth for error. 3. If any
protestant or papist be betrayed into or kept in any
error by any sin of his will, (as it is to be feared many

G 3

86 Ansiver to the Preface of

millions are,) such error is, as the cause of it, sinful and
damnable ; yet not exclusive of all hope of salvation, but
pardonable, if discovered, upon a particular explicit re-
pentance ; if not discovered, upon a general and implicit
repentance for all sins^ known and unknown : in which
number all sinful errors must of necessity be contained.
27. Ad ^. 19- To the ninth, wherein you are so
urgent for a particular catalogue of fundamentals : I
answer almost in your own words, that we also con-
stantly urge and require to have a particular catalogue
of your fundamentals, whether they be written verities,
or unwritten traditions, or church definitions, all which,
you say, integrate the material object of your faith:
in a word, of all such points as are defined and suffi-
ciently proposed ; so that whosoever denies, or doubts
of any of them, is certainly in the state of damnation.
A catalogue, I say, in particular of the proposals ; and
not only some general definition or description, under
which you lurk deceitfully, of what and what only is
sufficiently proposed : wherein yet you do not very well
agree \ For many of you hold the pope's proposal ex
cathedra to be sufficient and obliging ; some, a council
without a pope ; some, of neither of them severally, but
only both together ; some, not this neither in matter of
manners, which Bellarmine acknowledges, and tells us,
it is all one in effect as if they denied it sufficient in
matter of faith ; some not in matter of faith neither
think this proposal infallible, without the acceptation
of the church universal ; some deny the infallibility of
the present church, and only make the tradition of all

i This great diversity of opinions among you, touching this mat-
ter, if any man doubt of it, let him read Franciscus Picus Mirandula
in 1. Theorem, in Exposit. Theor. quarti ; and Th. Waldensis, torn,
iii. De Sacramentalibus, Doct. 3. fol. 5. and he shall be fully satis-
fied that I have done you no injury.

The Author of Charity Maintained. 87

ages the infallible propounder : yet if you were agreed
what and what only is the infallible propounder, this
would not satisfy us ; nor yet to say, that all is funda-
mental which is propounded sufficiently by him : for
though agreeing in this, yet you might still disagree
whether such or such a doctrine were propounded or
not; or, if propounded, whether sufficiently, or only
unsufficiently. And it is so known a thing that in
many points you do so, that I assure myself you will
not deny it. Therefore we constantly urge and require
a particular and perfect inventory of all those Divine
revelations, which, you say, are sufficiently propounded ;
and that, such an one to which all of your church will
subscribe, as neither redundant nor deficient ; which
when you give in with one hand, you shall receive a
particular catalogue of such points as I call funda-
mental with the other. Neither may you think me
unreasonable in this demand, seeing upon such a par-
ticular catalogue of your sufficient proposals as much
depends as upon a particular catalogue of our funda-
mentals. As for example, whether or no a man do
not err in some point defined and sufficiently proposed ;
and whether or no those that differ among you differ
in fundamentals; which if they do one heaven (by
your own rule) cannot receive them all. Perhaps you
will here complain, that this is not to satisfy your
demand, but to avoid it, and to put you off, as the
Areopagites did hard causes, ad diem longissimum, and
bid you come again an hundred years hence. To deal
truly, I did so intend it should be. Neither can you
say my dealing with you is injurious, seeing I require
nothing of you, but that what you require of others
you should shew it possible to be done, and just and
necessary to be required. For, for my part, I have
great reason to suspect it is neither the one nor the

G 4

88 Ansiver to the Preface of

other : for whereas the verities which are delivered in
scripture may be very fitly divided into such as were
written because they were necessary to be believed (of
which rank are those only which constitute and make up
the covenant between God and man in Christ) ; and then
such as are necessary to be believed not in themselves,
but only by accident, because they were written ; of
which rank are many matters of history, of prophecy,
of mystery, of policy, of economy, and such like, which
are evidently not intrinsical to the covenant : now to
sever exactly and punctually these verities one from
the other, what is necessary in itself, and antecedently
to the writing, from what is but only profitable in itself,
and necessary only because written, is a business of ex-
treme great difficulty, and extreme little necessity. For,
first, he that will go about to distinguish, especially in
the story of our Saviour, what was written because it
was profitable, from what was written because necessary,
shall find an intricate piece of business of it, and almost
impossible that he should be certain he hath done it,
when he hath done it. And then it is apparently
unnecessary to go about it, seeing he that believes all,
certainly believes all that is necessary ; and he that
doth not believe all, (I mean all the undoubted parts of
the undoubted books of scripture,) can hardly believe
any ; neither have we reason to believe he doth so.
So that, that protestants give you not a catalogue of
fundamentals, it is not from tergiversation, (as you
suspect, who for want of charity to them always suspect
the worst,) but from wisdom and necessity : for they
may very easily err in doing it ; because, though all
which is necessary be plain in scripture, yet all which
is plain is not therefore written because it was neces-
sary : for what greater necessity was there that I
should know St. Paul left his cloak at Troas, than

The Author of Charity Maintained. 89

those worlds of miracles which our Saviour did, which
were never written? And when they had done it, it
had been to no purpose ; there being, as matters now
stand, as great necessity of believing those truths of
scripture which are not fundamental, as those that
are. You see then what reason we have to decline
this hard labour, which you, a rigid task-master, have
here put upon us. Yet instead of giving you a cata-
logue of fundamentals, with which I dare say you are
resolved, before it come, never to be satisfied ; I will
say that to you, which, if you please, may do you as
much service ; and this it is — ^that it is sufficient for
any man's salvation that he believe the scripture ;
that he endeavour to believe it in the true sense of it, as
far as concerns his duty ; and that he conform his life
unto it either by obedience or repentance. He that
does so (and all protestants, according to the dictamen
of their religion, should do so) may be secure that he
cannot err fundamentally. And they that do so cannot
differ in fundamentals. So that, notwithstanding their
differences, and your presumption, the same heaven
may receive them all.

28. Ad §. 20. Your tenth and last request is, to know
distinctly what is the doctrine of the protestant English
church in these points, and what my private opinion ?
which shall be satisfied when the church of England
hath expressed herself in them ; or when you have told
us what is the doctrine of your church in the question
of predetermination, or the immaculate conception.

29. Ad ^.21. and 22. These answers, I hope, in the
judgment of indifferent men, are satisfactory to your
questions, though not to you ; for I have either an-
swered them, or given you a reason why I have not.
Neither, for aught I can see, have I flitted from things
considered in their own nature to accidental or rare

90 Answer to the Preface of

circumstances ; but told you my opinion plainly what
I thought of your errors in themselves ; and what as
they were qualified or malignified with good or bad
circumstances. Though I must tell you truly, that I
see no reason, the question being of the damnableness
of error, why you should esteem ignorance, incapacity,
want of means to be instructed, accidental and rare
circumstances : as if knowledge, capacity, having means
of instruction concerning the truth of your religion or
ours, were not as rare and unusual in the adverse part
of either, as ignorance, incapacity, and want of means
of instruction ; especiallyl^bow erroneous conscience can
be a rare thing in those that err ; or how unerring
conscience is not much more rare, I am not able to
apprehend. So that, to consider men of different reli-
gions (the subject of this controversy) in their own
nature, and without circumstances, must be to consider
them neither as ignorant nor as knowing ; neither as
having, nor as wanting means of instruction ; neither
as with capacity, nor without it ; neither with errone-
ous, nor yet with unerring conscience. And then what
judgment can you pronounce of them, all the goodness
and badness of an action depending on the circum-
stances ? Ought not a judge, being to give sentence of
an action, to consider all the circumstances of it? Or is
it possible he should judge rightly that doth not so ?
Neither is it to purpose that circumstances being
various cannot be well comprehended under any general
rule : for though under any general rule they cannot,
yet under many general rules they may be compre-
hended. The question here is, you say, whether men
of different religions may be saved ? Now the subject
of this question is an ambiguous term, and may be
determined and invested with diverse and contrary
circumstances ; and, accordingly, contrary judgments

The Author of Charity Maintained. 91

are to be given of it. And who can then be offended
with D. Potter for distinguishing before he defines; (the
want whereof is the chief thing that makes defining
dangerous ;) who can find fault with him for saying,
" If, through want of means of instruction, incapacity,
invincible or probable ignorance, a man die in error,
he may be saved. But if he be negligent in seeking
the truth, unwilling to find it, either doth see it and
will not, or might see it and will not, that his case is
dangerous, and without repentance desperate." This
is all that D. Potter says, neither rashly damning all
that are of a different opinion from him, nor securing
any that are in matter of religion sinfully, that is wil-
lingly, erroneous. The author of this reply (I will
abide by it) says the very same thing ; neither can I
see what adversary he hath in the main question but
his own shadow ; and yet, I know not out of what
frowardness, finds fault with D. Potter for affirming
that which himself aflSrms : and to cloud the matter,
whereas the question is, whether men by ignorance,
dying in error, may be saved ? would have them con-
sidered neither as erring nor ignorant. And when
the question is, whether the errors of the papists be
damnable ? — to which we answer, that to them that do
or might know them to be errors, they are damnable ;
to them that do not, they are not — he tells us, " that this
is to change the state of the question" — whereas, indeed,
it is to state the question, and free it from ambiguity
before you answer it — and " to have recourse to acciden-
tal circumstances ;" as if ignorance were accidental to
error, or as if a man could be considered as in error,
and not be considered as in ignorance of the truth from
which he errs ! Certainly error against a truth must
needs presuppose a nescience of it ; unless you will say
that a man may at once resolve for a truth, and resolve

92 Answer to the Preface of the Author, Sfc.

against it ; assent to it, and dissent from it ; know it
to be true, and believe it not to be true. Whether
knowledge and opinion touching the same thing may
stand together, is made a question in the schools : but
he that would question whether knowing a thing and
doubting of it, much more, whether knowing it to be
true and believing it to be false, may stand together,
deserves, without question, no other answer but laugh-
ter. Now if error and knowledge cannot consist, then
error and ignorance must be inseparable. He then
that professeth your errors may well be considered either
as knowing or as ignorant. But him that does err in-
deed^ you can no more conceive without ignorance, than
long without quantity, virtuous without quality, a man
and not a living creature, to have gone ten miles and
not to have gone five, to speak sense and not to speak.
For as the latter in all these is implied in the former,
so is ignorance of a truth supposed in error against
it. Yet such a man, though not conceivable without
ignorance simply, may be very well considered either
as with or without voluntary and sinful ignorance.
And he that will give a wise answer to this question,
— whether a papist dying a papist may be saved ac-
cording to God's ordinary proceeding ? must distinguish
him according to these several considerations, and say,
he may be saved, if his ignorance were either invinc-
ible, or at least unaffected and probable ; if otherwise,
without repentance he cannot.

To the rest of this Preface I have nothing to say,
saving what hath been said, but this ; that it is no
just exception to an argument, to call it vulgar and
thread bare ; truth can neither be too common nor
superannuated, nor reason ever worn out. Let your
answers be solid and pertinent, and we will never find
fault with them for being old or common.

CHARITY
MAINTAINED BY CATHOLICS.

PART I.

CHAPTER I.

The state of the question ; with a summary of the reasons for
which, amongst men of different religions, one side only
can be saved.

JM EVER is malice more indiscreet, than when it
chargeth others with imputation of that, to which
itself becomes more liable, even by that very act of
accusing others : for though guiltiness be the effect of
some error, yet usually it begets a kind of moderation,
so far forth, as not to let men cast such aspersions upon
others, as most apparently reflect upon themselves.
Thus cannot the poet endure that Gracchus % who was
a factious and unquiet man, should be inveighing
against sedition : and the Roman orator rebukes phi-
losophers, who, to wax glorious, superscribed their
names upon those very books which they entitled, Of
the Contempt of Glory. What then shall we say of
D. Potter, who, in the title and text of his whole book,
doth so tragically charge want of charity on all such
Romanists as dare affirm that protestancy destroyeth
salvation ; while he himself is in act of pronouncing
the like heavy doom against Roman catholics? For,
not satisfied with much uncivil language, in affirming

^ " Quis tulerit Gracchum," &c.

94 Charity Maintained hy Catholics.

the Roman church ^ many ways to have played the
harlot, and in that regard deserved a bill of divorce
from Christ, and detestation of Christians ; in styling
her that proud ^ and cursed dame of Rome, which takes
upon her to revel in the house of God ; in talking of
an idol ^ to be worshipped at Rome ; he comes at length
to thunder out his fearful sentence against her : * For
that^ mass of errors,' saith he, *in judgment and prac-
tice, which is propor to her, and wherein she differs
from us, we judge a reconciliation impossible, and to
us (who are convicted in conscience of her corruptions)
damnable.' And in another place he saith : ' For us
who^ are convinced in conscience, that she errs in
many things, a necessity lies upon us, even under pain
of damnation, to forsake her in those errors.' By the
acerbity of which censure, he doth not only make him-
self guilty of that which he judgeth to be an heinous
offence in others, but freeth us from all colour of crime
by this his unadvised recrimination. For if Roman ca-
tholics be likewise convicted in conscience of the errors
of protestants, they may, and must, in conformity to
the Doctor's own rule, judge a reconciliation with them
to be also damnable. And thus, all the want of charity,
so deeply charged on us, dissolves itself into this poor
wonder — Roman catholics believe in their conscience
that the religion they profess is true, and the contrary
false.

2. " Nevertheless, we earnestly desire and take care,
that our doctrine may not be defamed by misinterpre-
tation. Far be it from us, by way of insultation, to
apply it against protestants, otherwise than as they are
comprehended under the generality of those who are
divided from the only one true church of Christ our
Lord, within the communion whereof he hath confined

i^ Page II. c Ibid. ^ Page 4, edit. i. ^ Page 20. ^ Page 81.

Charity Maintained by Catholics, 95

salvation. Neither do we understand why our most
dear countrymen should be offended if the universality
be particularized under the name of protestants, first
given ^ to certain Lutherans, who, protesting that they
would stand out against the imperial decrees, in defence
of the Confession exhibited at Ausburg, were termed
protestants, in regard of such their protesting : which
Confessio Augustana, disclaiming from, and being dis-
claimed by, Calvinists and Zuinglians, our naming or
exemplifying a general doctrine under the particular
name of protestantism ought not in any particular
manner to be odious in England.

" Moreover, our meaning is not, as misinformed
persons may conceive, that we give protestants over to
reprobation ; that we offer no prayers in hope of their
salvation ; that we hold their case desperate ; God
forbid ! We hope, we pray for, their conversion ; and
sometimes we find happy effects of our charitable
desires. Neither is our censure immediately directed
to particular persons. The tribunal of particular judg-
ments is God's alone, when any man, esteemed a
protestant, leaveth to live in this world, we do not
instantly with precipitation avouch that he is lodged in
hell. For we are not always acquainted with what
sufficiency or means he was furnished for instruction ;
we do not penetrate his capacity to understand his
catechist ; we have no revelation what light may have
cleared his errors, or contrition retracted his sins, in
the last moment before his death. In such particular
cases we wish more apparent signs of salvation, but do
not give any dogmatical sentence of perdition. How
grievous sins disobedience, schism, and heresy are, is
well known ; but to discern how far the natural ma-
lignity of those great offences might be checked by
g Sleidan, 1. 6. fol. 84.

96 Charity Maintained hy Catholics,

ignorance, or by some such lessening circumstance, is
the office rather of prudence than of faith.

4. " Thus we allow protestants as much charity as
D. Potter spares us, for whom, in the words abovemen-
tioned, and elsewhere, he ^' makes ignorance the best
hope of salvation. Much less comfort can we expect
from the fierce doctrine of those chief protestants, who
teach, that for many ages before Luther Christ had
no visible church upon earth. Not these men alone, or
such as they, but even the Thirty-nine Articles, to
which the English protestant clergy subscribes, censure
our belief so deeply, that ignorance can scarce, or rather
not at all, excuse us from damnation. Our doctrine of
transubstantiation is affirmed to be repugnant to the
plain words of Scripture^ ; our masses to be blasphem-
ous fables^; with much more to be seen in the Arti-
cles themselves. In a certain confession of the Christ-
ian faith, at the end of their books of Psalms collected
into metre, and printed cum privilegio regis regally
they call us idolaters, and limbs of antichrist ; and
having set down a catalogue of our doctrines, they
conclude, that for them we shall after the general re-
surrection be damned to unquenchable fire.

5. " But yet, lest any man should flatter himself
with our charitable mitigations, and thereby wax care-
less in search of the true church, we desire him to
read the conclusion of the second part, where this
matter is more explained.

6. " And because we cannot determine what judg-
ment may be esteemed rash or prudent, except by
weighing the reasons upon which it is grounded, we
will here, under one aspect, present a summary of those
principles, from which we infer, that protestancy in it-
self unrepented destroys salvation; intending after-

h See page 39. ^ Art. XXVIII. k Art. XXXI.

Charity Maintamed by Catholics. 97

ward to prove the truth of every one of the grounds,
till, by a concatenation of sequels, we fall upon the
conclusion, for which we are charged with want of
charity.

7. " Now this is our gradation of reasons : Al-
mighty God having ordained mankind to a supernatu-
ral end of eternal felicity, hath, in his holy providence,
settled competent and convenient means whereby that
end may be attained. The universal grand origin of
all such means is the incarnation and death of our
blessed Saviour, whereby he merited internal grace for
us ; and founded an external visible church, provided
and stored with all those helps which might be neces-
sary for salvation. From hence it folio weth, that in
this church, among other advantages, there must be
some effectual means to beget and conserve faith, to
maintain unity, to discover and condemn heresies, to
appease and reduce schisms, and to determine all con-
troversies in religion. For without such means the
church should not be furnished with helps sufficient to
salvation, nor God afford sufficient means to attain that
end to which himself ordained mankind. This means
to decide controversies in faith and religion (whether it
should be the holy scripture, or whatsoever else) must
be endued with an universal infallibility in whatsoever
it propoundeth for a Divine truth, that is, as revealed,
spoken, or testified by Almighty God, whether the
matter of its nature be great or small. For if it were
subject to error in any one thing, we could not in any
other yield it infallible assent ; because we might with
good reason doubt whether it chanced not to err in
that particular.

8. " Thus far all must agree to what we have said,
unless they have a mind to reduce faith to opinion.
And even out of these grounds alone, without further

CHILLINGWORTH, VOL. I. H

98 Charity Maintamed by Catholics. part r,

proceeding, it undeniably follows, that of two men dis-
senting in matters of faith, great or small, few or many,
the one cannot be saved without repentance, unless ig-
norance accidentally may in some particular person plead
excuse. For in that case of contrary belief, one must of
necessity be held to oppose God's word or revelation suf-
ficiently represented to his understanding by an infallible
propounder ; which opposition to the testimony of God
is undoubtedly a damnable sin, whether otherwise the
thing so testified be in itself great or small. And
thus we have already made good what was promised in
the argument of this chapter, that amongst men of dif-
ferent religions one is only capable of being saved.

9. " Nevertheless, to the end that men may know in
particular what is the said infallible means upon which
we are to rely in all things concerning faith, and ac-
cordingly may be able to judge in what safety or dan-
ger, more or less, they live ; and because D. Potter de-
scendeth to divers particulars about scriptures and the
church, &c., we will go forward, and prove, that al-
though scripture be in itself most sacred, infallible, and
Divine, yet it alone cannot be to us a rule or judge, fit
and able to end all doubts and debates emergent in
matters of religion ; but that there must be some ex-
ternal, visible, public, living judge, to whom all sorts
of persons, both learned and unlearned, may without
danger of error have recourse, and in whose judgment
they may rest for the interpreting and propounding of
God's word or revelation. And this living judge we
will most evidently prove to be no other but that holy
catholic, apostolic, and visible church, which our Sa-
viour purchased with the effusion of his most precious
blood.

10. " If once therefore it be granted, that the church
is that means which God hath left for deciding all con-

CHAP. I. Charity Mamfained by Catholics. 99

troversies in faith, it manifestly will follow that she
must be infallible in all her determinations, whether
the matters of themselves be great or small ; because,
as we said above, it must be agreed on all sides, that
if that means which God hath left to determine con-
troversies were not infallible in all things proposed by
it, as truths revealed by Almighty God, it could not settle
in our minds a firm and infallible belief of any one.

11. " From this universal infallibility of God's
church, it followeth, that whosoever wittingly denieth
any one point proposed by her, as revealed by God, is
injurious to his Divine Majesty, as if he could either
deceive or be deceived in what he testifieth : the aver-
ring whereof were not only a fundamental error, but
would overthrow the very foundation of all fvmdamen-
tal points ; and, therefore, without repentance, could
not possibly stand with salvation.

12. " Out of these grounds we will shew, that al-
though the distinction of points fundamental and not
fundamental be good and useful, as it is delivered and
applied by catholic divines, to teach what principal ai-
ticles of faith Christians are obliged explicitly to be-
lieve ; yet, that it is impertinent to the present purpose
of excusing any man from grievous sin, who knowing-
ly disbelieves, that is, believes the contrary of that
which God's church proposeth as Divine truth. For it
is one thing not to know explicitly something testified
by God, and another positively to oppose what we know
he hath testified. The former may often be excused
from sin, but never the latter, which only is the case in
question.

13. " In the same manner shall be demonstrated,
that to allege the Creed, as containing all articles of
faith, necessary to be explicitly believed, is not perti-
nent to free from sin the voluntary denial of any other

H 2

100 Charity Maintained by Catholics. pj^rt i.

point known to be defined by God's church. And this
were sufficient to overthrow all that D. Potter allegeth
concerning the Creed ; though yet, by way of superero-
gation, we will prove, that there are divers important
matters of faith which are not mentioned at all in the
Creed.

14. " From the aforesaid main principle, that God
hath always had, and always will have, on earth, a
church visible, within whose communion salvation must
be hoped ; and infallible, whose definitions we ought
to believe ; we will prove that Luther, Calvin, and all
other, who continue the division in communion or
faith from that visible church, which at and before
Luther's appearance was spread over the world, cannot
be excused from schism and heresy, although they op-
posed her faith but in one only point ; whereas it is
manifest they dissent from her in many and weighty
matters, concerning as well belief as practice.

15. " To these reasons, drawn from the virtue of
faith, we will add one other taken from charitas pro-
pria, the virtue of charity, as it obligeth us not to ex-
pose our soul to hazard of perdition, when we can put
ourselves in a way much more secure, as we will prove
that of the Roman catholics to be.

16. " We are then to prove these points : First,
that the infallible means to determine controversies, in
matters of faith, is the visible church of Christ. Se-
condly, that the distinction of points fundamental and
not fundamental maketh nothing to our present ques-
tion. Thirdly, that to say the Creed contains all fun-
damental points of faith, is neither pertinent nor true.
Fourthly, that both Luther and all they who after
him persist in division from the communion and faith
of the Roman church cannot be excused from schism.
Fifthly, nor from heresy. Sixthly and lastly, that in

CHAP. I. Chanty Maintained by Catholics. 101

regard of the precept of charity towards one's self, pro-
testants be in a state of sin, as long as they remain di-
vided from the Roman church. And these six points
shall be several arguments for so many ensuing chap-
ters.

17. " Only I will here observe, that it seemeth very
strange that protestants should charge us so deeply
with want of charity, for only teaching that both they
and we cannot be saved, seeing themselves must affirm
the like of whosoever opposeth any least point delivered
in scripture, which they hold to be the sole rule of
faith. Out of which ground they nmst be enforced to
let all our former inferences pass for good : for, is it
not a grievous sin to deny any one truth contained in
holy writ ? is there in such denial any distinction be-
tween points fundamental and not fundamental, suffi-
cient to excuse from heresy ? is it not impertinent to
allege the Creed containing all fundamental points of
faith, as if, believing it alone, we were at liberty to
deny all other points of scripture? In a word, according
to protestants, oppose not scripture, there is no error
against faith ; oppose it in any least point, the error,
if scripture be sufficiently proposed, (which proposition
is also required before a man can be obliged to believe
even fundamental points,) must be damnable. What is
this, but to say with us, of persons contrary in what-
soever point of belief, one party only can be saved ?
And D. Potter must not take it ill, if catholics believe
they may be saved in that religion for which they suf-
fer. And if by occasion of this doctrine men will still
be charging us with want of charity, and be resolved
to take scandal where none is given, we must comfort
ourselves with that grave and true saying of St. Gre-
gory, * If scandal ^ be taken from declaring a truth, it is
1 St. Greg. Horn. 7. in Ezek.
H 3

102 Papists uncharitable v. i. ch. i.

better to permit scandal than forsake the truth.' But
the solid grounds of our assertion, and the sincerity of
our intention, in uttering what we think, yields us
confidence, that all will hold for most reasonable the
saying of Pope Gelasius to Anastasius the emperor, ' Far
be it from the Roman emperor, that he should hold it
for a wrong to have truth declared to him !' Let us there-
fore begin with that point which is the first that can be
controverted betwixt protestants and us, for as much as
concerns the present question, and is contained in the
argument of the next ensuing chapter."

THE

ANSWER TO THE FIRST CHAPTER:

Shewing, that the adversary/ grants the former question, and
proposeth a new one ; and that there is no reason why,

among men of different opinions and communions, one side

only can be saved.

Ad §. 1 . Your first onset is very violent : D. Potter
is charged with malice and indiscretion, for being un-
charitable to you, while he is accusing you of uncharit-
ableness. Verily a great fault and folly, if the accu-
sation be just ; if unjust, a great calumny. Let us
see then how you make good your charge. The effect
of your discourse, if I mistake not, is this : — D. Potter
chargeth the Roman church with many and great er-
rors ; judgeth reconciliation between her doctrine and
ours impossible ; and that for them who are convicted
in conscience of her erroi's not to forsake her in them,
or to be reconciled unto her, is damnable : therefore
if Roman catholics be convicted in conscience of the
errors of protestants, they may and must judge a re-
conciliation with them damnable ; and consequently

ANSWER. in condemning Protestants, lOS

to judge so, is no more uncharitable in them, than it is
in the Doctor to judge as he doth. — All this I grant ;
nor would any protestant accuse you of want of cha-
rity, if you went no further : if you judged the religion
of protestants damnable to them only who profess it,
being convicted in conscience that it is erroneous. For
if a man judge some act of virtue to be a sin, in him it
is a sin indeed : so you have taught us (p. 19). So, if
you be convinced, or rather, to speak properly, per-
suaded in conscience, that our religion is erroneous,
the profession of it, though itself most true, to you
would be damnable. This therefore I subscribe very
willingly, and withal, that if you said no more, D.
Potter and myself should not be to papists only, but
even to protestants, as uncharitable as you are : for I
shall always profess and glory in this uncharitableness
of judging hypocrisy a damnable sin. Let hypocrites
then and dissemblers on both sides pass. It is not to-
wards them, but good Christians ; not to protestant
professors, but believers, that we require your charity.
What think you of those that believe so verily the
truth of our religion, that they are resolved to die in
it, and, if occasion were, to die for it ? What charity
have you for them ? What think ye of those that, in
the days of our fathers, laid down their lives for it ?
Are you content that they should be saved, or do you
hope they may be so ? Will you grant, that, notwith-
standing their errors, there is good hope they might
die with repentance ? and if they did so, certainly
they are saved. If you will do so, this controversy is
ended. No man will hereafter charge you with want
of charity. This is as much as either we give you or
expect of you, while you remain in your religion. But
then you must leave abusing silly people with telling
them, (as your fashion is,) that protestants confess pa-

H 4

104 Papists uncharitable p. i. ch. i.

pists may be saved, but papists confess not so much of
protestants ; therefore yours is the safer way, and in
wisdom and charity to our own souls we are bound to
follow it. For, granting this, you grant as much hope
of salvation to protestants, as protestants do to you. If
you will not, but will still affirm, as Charity Mistaken
doth, that protestants, not dissemblers, but believers,
without a particular repentance of their religion cannot
be saved ; this, I say, is a want of charity, into the so-
ciety whereof D. Potter cannot be drawn but with pal-
pable and transparent sophistry. For, I pray sir,
what dependance is there between these propositions :
We that hold protestant religion false should be damned
if we should profess it ; therefore they also shall be
damned that hold it true ? Just as if you should con-
clude, because he that doubts is damned if he eat^
therefore he that doth not doiibt is damned also if he
eat. And therefore though your religion to us, and
ours to you, if professed against conscience, would be
damnable ; yet may it well be uncharitable to define it
shall be so, to them that profess either this or that ac-
cording to conscience. This recrimination therefore
upon D.Potter, wherewith you begin, is a plain fallacy;
and I fear your proceedings will be answerable to these
beginnings.

2. Ad §.2. In this paragraph protestants are thus
far comforted, that they are not sent to hell without
company ; which the poet tells us is the miserable
comfort of miserable men. Then we in England are
requested not to be offended with the name of protest-
ants. Which is a favour I shall easily grant, if by it
be understood those that protest, not against imperial
edicts, but against the corruptions of the church of Rome.

3. Ad §. 3 — 6. That you give us not over to reproba-
tion, that you pray and hope for our salvation — if it be a

ANSWER. in condemning Protestants^ 105

charity, it is such a one as is common to Turks and
Jews and Pagans with us. But that which follows is
extraordinary ; neither do I know any man that re-
quires more of you than there you pretend to. For
there you tell us, " that when any man esteemed a pro-
testant dies, you do not instantly avouch that he is
lodged in hell." — Where the word esteemed is am-
biguous ; for it may signify esteemed truly, and es-
teemed falsely. He may be esteemed a protestant
that is so ; and he may be esteemed a protestant
that is not so. And therefore I should have had
just occasion to have laid to your charge the trans-
gression of your own chief prescription, which, you say,
truth exacts at our hands, that is, to speak clearly or
distinctly, and not to walk in darkness ; — but that your
following words, to my understanding, declare suffi-
ciently that you speak of both sorts. For there you tell
us, that the reasons why you damn not any man that
dies with the esteem of a protestant, are, 1. " Because
you are not always acquainted with what sufficiency of
means he was furnished for instruction ;" — you must
mean touching the falsehood of his own religion and
the truth of yours : which reason is proper to those
that are protestants in truth, and not only in estimation.
2. " Because you do not penetrate his capacity to under-
stand his catechist;" which is also peculiar to those who,
for want of capacity, (as you conceive,) remain protest-
ants indeed, and are not only so accounted. 3. " Be-
cause you have no revelation what light might clear his
errors," which belongs to those which were esteemed
protestants, but indeed were not so. 4. " Because
you have no revelation what contrition might have re-
tracted his sins :" which reason being distinct from the
former, and divided from it by the disjunctive particle
or, insinuates unto us, that though no light did clear

106 Papists uncharitable p. i. ch. i.

the errors of a dying protestant, yet contrition might,
for aught you know, retract his sins ; which appropri-
ates this reason also to protestants truly so esteemed.
I wish, with all my heart, that in obedience to your
own prescription, you had expressed yourself in this
matter more fully and plainly. Yet that which you
say doth plainly enough afford us these corollaries :

1. That whatsoever protestant wanteth capacity,
or, having it, wanteth sufficient means of in-
struction to convince his conscience of the false-
hood of his own, and the truth of the Roman re-
ligion, by the confession of his most rigid adver-
saries, may be saved, notwithstanding any error
in his religion.

2. That nothing hinders but that a protestant,
dying a protestant, may die with contrition for
all his sins.

S. That if he do die with contrition, he may and
shall be saved.
4. All these acknowledgments we have from you while
you are, as you say, stating, but, as I conceive, granting,
the very point in question ; which was, as I have al-
ready proved out of C. M., whether, without uncharit-
ableness, you may pronounce that protestants, dying
in the belief of their religion, and without particular
repentance and dereliction of it, cannot possibly be
saved ; which C. M. affirms universally, and without
any of your limitations. But this presumption of his
you thus qualify, by saying, that this sentence cannot
be pronounced truly, and therefore sure not charitably ;
neither of those protestants that want means sufficient
to instruct and convince them of the truth of your re-
ligion, and the falsehood of their own ; nor of those
who, though they have neglected the means they might
have had, died with contrition, that is, with a sorrow

ANSWER. in condemning Protestants. 107

for all their sins, proceeding from the love of God. So
that, according to your doctrine, it shall remain upon
such only as either were, or but for their own fault
might have been, sufficiently convinced of the truth of
your religion, and the falsehood of their own, and yet
die in it without contrition. Which doctrine if you
would stand to, and not pull down and pull back with
one hand what you give and build with the other, this
controversy were ended ; and I should willingly ac-
knowledge that which follows in your fourth para-
graph, that you allow protestants as much charity as
D. Potter allows you. But then I must entreat you to
alter the argument of this chapter, and not to go about
to give us reasons, why amongst men of different reli-
gions one side only can be saved absolutely ; which
your reasons drive at : but you must temper the crude-
ness of your assertion by saying — " one side only can
be saved, unless want of conviction, or else repentance,
excuse the other." Besides, you must not only abstain
from damning any protestant in particular, but from
affirming in general that protestants dying in their re-
ligion cannot be saved : for you must always remember
to add this caution — unless they were excusably igno-
rant of the falsehood of it, or died with contrition.
And then, considering that you cannot know whether
or no, all things considered, they were convinced suffi-
ciently of the truth of your religion, and the falsehood
of their own, you are obliged by charity to judge the
best, and hope they are not. Considering again* that
notwithstanding their errors they may die with con-
trition, and that it is no way improbable that they do
so, and the contrary you cannot be certain of, you are
bound in charity to judge and hope they do so. Con-
sidering, thirdly and lastly, that if they die not with
contrition, yet it is very probable they may die with

108 PapisU uncharitable p. i. ch* i.

attrition ; and that this pretence of yours, that contri-
tion will serve without actual confession, but attrition
will not, is but a nicety or fancy ; or rather, to give it the
true name, a device of your own, to serve ends and pur-
poses— God having no where declared himself, but that
wheresoever he will accept of that repentance which you
are pleased to call contrition, he will accept of that which
you call attrition : for, though he like best the bright
flaming holocaust of love, yet he rejects not, he quench-
eth not, the smoking flax of that repentance (if it be true
and effectual) which proceeds from hope and fear : these
things, I say, considered, (unless you will have the cha-
rity of your doctrine rise up in judgment against your
uncharitable practice,) you must not only not be per-
emptory in damning protestants, but you must hope
well of their salvation ; and out of this hope you
must do for them as well as others, those, as you con-
ceive, charitable offices, of praying, giving alms, and of-
fering sacrifice, which usually you do for those of whose
salvation you are well and charitably persuaded (for I
believe you will never conceive so well of protestants, as
to assure yourselves they go directly to heaven). These
things when you do, I shall believe you think as charit-
ably as you speak: but until then, as he said in the come-
dy* Quid verba audiam, cum facta videam ? so may I
say to you, Quid verba audiam, cum facta non videam"^
To what purpose should you give us charitable words,
which presently you retract again, by denying us your
charitable actions ? And as these things you must do, if
you will stand to and make good this pretended charity,
so must I tell you again and again, that one thing you
must not do ; I mean, you must not affright poor peo-
ple out of their religion with telling them, that by the
confession of both sides your way is safe, but, in your
judgment, ours undoubtedly damnable ; seeing neither

ANSWER. 171 condemnwg Protestants. 109

you deny salvation to protestants dying with repent-
ance, nor we promise it to you if ye die without it.
For to deal plainly with you, I know no protestant
that hath any other hope of your salvation but upon
these grounds — that unaffected ignorance may excuse
you, or true repentance obtain pardon for you ; neither
do the heavy censures, which protestants (you say)
pass upon your errors, any way hinder but they
may hope as well of you upon repentance as I do.
For the fierce doctrine, which God knows who teach-
eth, that Christ for many ages before Luther had no
visible church upon earth, will be mild enough, if you
conceive them to mean (as perhaps they do) by no vi-
sible church, none pure and free from corruptions,
which in your judgment is all one with no church.
But the truth is, the corruption of the church and the
destruction of it is not all one. For if a particular
man or church may (as you confess they may) hold
some particular errors, and yet be a member of the
church universal ; why may not the church hold some
universal error, and yet be still the church ? especially
seeing, you say, it is nothing but " opposing the doc-
trine of the church that makes an error damnable," and
it is impossible that the church should oppose the
church — I mean, that the present church should oppose
itself. And then for the English protestants, though
they censure your errors deeply, yet, by your favour,
with their deepest censure it may well consist, that in-
vincible ignorance may excuse you from damnation for
them : for you yourself confess, " that ignorance may
excuse errors, even in fundamental articles of faith : so
that a man so erring shall not offend at all in such his
ignorance or error:" — they are your own words, pref.
§. 22. And again, with their heaviest censures it may
well consist, that your errors, though in themselves
damnable, yet may prove not damning to you, if you

110 Papists uncharitable p. i. ch. i.

die with true repentance for all your sins, known and
unknown.

5. Thus much charity, therefore, if you stand to
what you have said, is interchangeably granted by each
side to the other, that neither religion is so fatally
destructive, but that by ignorance or repentance salva-
tion may be had on both sides : — though with a difference
that keeps papists still on the more uncharitable side.
For whereas we conceive a lower degree of repentance,
(that which they call attrition^) if it be true and effect-
ual, and convert the heart of the penitent, will serve
in them ; they pretend, (even this author which is most
charitable towards us,) that without contrition there is
no hope for us. But, though protestants may not ob-
tain this purchase at so easy a rate as papists, yet (even
papists being judges) they may obtain it : and though
there is no entrance for them but at the only door of
contrition, yet they may enter ; heaven is not inacces-
sible to them. Their errors are no such impenetrable
isthmuses between them and salvation, but that contri-
tion may make a way through them. All their schism
and heresy is no such fatal poison, but that, if a man
join with it the antidote of a general repentance, he
may die in it, and live for ever. Thus much then
being acknowledged, I appeal to any indifferent reader
whether CM. be not by his hyperaspist forsaken in
the plain field, and the point in question granted to
D. Potter, viz. that protestancy, even without a parti-
cular repentance, is not destructive of salvation. So
that all the controversy remaining now, is not simply
whether protestancy unrepented destroys salvation ? as
it was at first proposed, but whether protestancy in
itself (that is, abstracting from ignorance and contrition)
destroys salvation? So that as a foolish fellow who
gave a knight the lie, desiring withal leave of him to
set his knighthood aside, was answered by him, that he

ANSWER. in condemning Protestants. Ill

would not suffer any thing to be set aside that belonged
unto him ; so might we justly take it amiss, that con-
ceiving, as you do, ignorance and repentance such
necessary things for us, you are not more willing to
consider us with them than without them. For my
part, such is my charity to you, that considering what
great necessity you have, as much as any Christian
society in the world, that these sanctuaries of ignorance
and repentance should always stand open, I can very
hardly persuade myself so much as in my most secret
consideration to divest you of these so needful qualifi-
cations : but whensoever your errors, superstitions, and
impieties come into my mind, (and, besides the general
bonds of humanity and Christianity, my own particular
obligations to many of you, such and so great, that you
cannot perish without a part of myself,) my only com-
fort is, amidst these agonies, that the doctrine and
practice too of repentance is yet remaining in your
church : and that though you put on a face of confi-
dence of your innocence, in point of doctrine, yet you
will be glad to stand in the eye of mercy as well as
your fellows, and not be so stout as to refuse either
God's pardon or the king's.

6. But for the present, protestancy is called to the bar,
and though not sentenced by you to death without
mercy, yet arraigned of so much natural malignity (if
not corrected by ignorance or contrition) as to be in
itself destructive of salvation. Which controversy I
am content to dispute with you, tying myself to follow
the rules prescribed by you in your preface. Only I
am to remember you, that the adding of this limitation,
in itself^ hath made this a new question ; and that
this is not the conclusion for which you were charged
with want of charity : but that whereas, according to
the grounds of your own religion, "protestants may

112 Papists uncharitable p. i. ch. i.

die in their supposed errors, either with excusable
ignorance or with contrition, and if they do so, may
be saved," you still are peremptory in pronouncing
them damned. Which position, supposing your doc-
trine true and ours false, as it is far from charity,
(whose essential character it is to judge and hope the
best,) so I believe that I shall clearly evince this new
but more moderate assertion of yours to be far from
verity, and that it is popery, and not protestancy,
which in itself destroys salvation.

7. Ad §. 7 and 8. In your gradation I shall rise so
far with you as to grant, that Christ founded a visible
church, stored with all helps necessary to salvation,
particularly with sufficient means to beget and conserve
faith, to maintain unity, and compose schisms, to dis-
cover and condemn heresies, and to determine all
controversies in religion which were necessary to be
determined. For all these purposes he gave at the
beginning (as we may see in the Epistle to the Ephe-
sians) apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and
doctors ; who by word of mouth taught their contem-
poraries, and by writings (wrote indeed by some, but
approved by all of them) taught their Christian posterity
to the world's end, how all these ends, and that which
is the end of all these ends, salvation, is to be achieved.
And these means the providence of God hath still pre-
served, and so preserved, that they are sufficient for all
these intents. I say sufficient, though through the
malice of men not always effectual ; for that the same
means may be sufficient for the compassing an end, and
not effectual, you must not deny, who hold that God
gives to all men sufficient means of salvation, and yet
that all are not saved. I said, also, sufficient to de-
termine all controversies which were necessary to be
determined. For if some controversies may for many

ANSWER. in co7idemning Protestants. 11»S

ages be undetermined, and yet in the meanwhile men
be saved ; why should, or how can, the church's
being furnished with effectual means to determine
all controversies in religion be necessary to salva-
tion, the end itself to which these means are or-
dained being as experience shews not necessary?
Plain sense will teach every man that the necessity of
the means must always be measured by, and can never
exceed, the necessity of the end. As, if eating be
necessary only that I may live ; then certainly, if I
have no necessity to live, I have no necessity to eat : if
I have no need to be at London, I have no need of a
horse to carry me thither : if I have no need to fly, I
have no need of wings. Answer me then, I pray,
directly, and categorically ; is it necessary that all con-
troversies in religion should be determined, or is it
not ? If it be, why is the question of predetermination,
of the immaculate conception, of the pope's indirect
power in temporalities, so long undetermined ? If not,
what is it but hypocrisy to pretend such great necessity
of such effectual means for the achieving that end
which is itself not necessary? Christians therefore
have, and shall have, means sufficient (though not
always effectual) to determine, not all controversies,
but all necessary to be determined. I proceed on far-
ther with you, and grant, that this means to decide
controversies in faith and religion must be endued with
an universal infallibility in whatsoever it propoundeth
for a Divine truth. For if it may be false in any one
thing of this nature, in any thing which God requires
men to believe, we can yield unto it but a wavering
and fearful assent in any thing. These grounds there-
fore I grant very readily, and give you free leave to
make your best advantage of them. And yet, to deal
truly, I do not perceive how from the denial of any of

CHILLINGWORTH, VOL. I. I

114 Papists uncharitable p. i. ch. i.

them it would follow, that faith is opinion, or, from
the granting them, that it is not so. But for my part,
whatsoever clamour you have raised against me, I think
no otherwise of the nature of faith, I mean historical
faith, than generally both protestants and papists do ;
for I conceive it an assent to Divine revelations upon
the authority of the revealer; which though in many
things it differ from opinion, (as commonly the word
opinion is understood,) yet in some things I doubt not
but you will confess that it agrees with it. As first,
that as opinion is an assent, so is faith also. Secondly,
that as opinion, so faith, is always built upon less evi-
dence than that of sense or science ; which assertion
you not only grant, but mainly contend for, in your
sixth chapter. Thirdly and lastly, that as opinion, so
faith, admits degrees ; and that, as there may be a
strong and weak opinion, so there may be a strong and
weak faith. These things if you will grant, (as sure
if you be in your right mind you will not deny any of
them,) I am well contented that this ill-sounding word,
opinion, should be discarded, and that among the intel-
lectual habits you should seek out some other genus for
faith. For I will never contend with any man about
words who grants my meaning.

8. But though the essence of faith exclude not all
weakness and imperfection, yet may it be inquired,
whether any certainty of faith, under the highest
degree, may be sufficient to please God and attain sal-
vation? Whereunto I answer, that though men are
unreasonable, God requires not any thing but reason :
they will not be pleased without a downweight ; but
God is contented if the scale be turned : they pretend
that heavenly things cannot be seen to any purpose,
but by the midday light ; but God will be satisfied, if
we receive any degree of light which makes us leave

ANSWER. in co7idemning Protestants. 115

the works of darkness, and walk as children of the
light: they exact a certainty of faith above that of
sense or science ; God desires only that we believe the
conclusion, as much as the premises deserve ; that the
strength of our faith be equal or proportionable to the
credibility of the motives to it. Now, though I have
and ought to have an absolute certainty of this thesis,
" All which God reveals for truth is true," being a
proposition that may be demonstrated, or rather so
evident to any one that understands it, that it needs it
not ; yet of this hypothesis, "That all the articles of our
faith were revealed by God," we cannot ordinarily have
any rational and acquired certainty, more than moral,
founded upon these considerations: first, that the
goodness of the precepts of Christianity, and the great-
ness of the promises of it, shews it, of all other religions,
most likely to come from the Fountain of Goodness.
And then, that a constant, famous, and very general
tradition, so credible that no wise man doubts of any
other which hath but the fortieth part of the credibility
of this ; such and so credible a tradition, tells us, that
God himself hath set his hand and seal to the truth of
this doctrine, by doing great and glorious and frequent
miracles in confirmation of it. Now our faith is an
assent to this conclusion, that the doctrine of Christi-
anity is true ; which being deduced from the former
thesis, which is metaphysically certain, and from the
former hypothesis, whereof we can have but a moral
certainty, we cannot possibly by natural means be more
certain of it than of the weaker of the premises ; as a
river will not rise higher than the fountain from which
it flows. For the conclusion always follows the worser
part, if there be any worse ; and must be negative,
particular, contingent, or but morally certain, if any of
the propositions from whence it is derived be so :

I 2

116 Papists uncharitable p. i. ch. i.

neither can we be certain of it in the highest degree,
unless we be thus certain of all the principles where-
on it is grounded : as a man cannot go or stand
strongly, if either of his legs be weak : or, as a build-
ing cannot be stable, if any one of the necessary pil-
lars thereof be infirm and instable : or, as if a mes-
sage be brought me from a man of absolute credit with
me, but by a messenger that is not so, my confidence of
the truth of the relation cannot but be rebated and
lessened by my diffidence in the relator.

9. Yet all this I say not, as if I doubted that the
Spirit of God, being implored by devout and humble
prayer, and sincere obedience, may and will by degrees
advance his servants higher, and give them a certainty
of adherence beyond their certainty of evidence. But
what God gives as a reward to believers is one thing ;
and what he requires of all men as their duty is an-
other ; and what he will accept of, out of grace and
favour, is yet another. To those that believe, and live ac-
cording to their faith, he gives by degrees the spirit of
obsignation and confirmation, which makes them know
(though how they know not) what they did but believe;
and to be as fully and resolutely assured of the gospel
of Christ, as those which heard it from Christ himself
with their ears, which saw it with their eyes, which
looked upon it, and whose hands handled the word of
life. He requires of all, that their faith should be (as I
have said) proportionable to the motives and reasons
enforcing to it ; he will accept of the weakest and low-
est degree of faith, if it be living and effectual unto
true obedience. For he it is that will not quench the
smokmgflax, nor break the bruised reed. He did not
reject the prayer of that distressed man that cried unto
him. Lord, I believe ; Lord, help mine unbelief. He
commands us to receive them that are weak in faith.

ANSWER. in condemmng Protestants. 117

and thereby declares that he receives them. And as no-
thing avails with him, but faith which worketh by love ;
so any faith, if it be but as a grain of mustard-seed, if it
work by love, shall certainly avail with him, and be ac-
cepted of him. Some experience makes me fear, that the
faith of considering and discoursing men is like to be
cracked with too much straining: and that being pos-
sessed with this false principle, that it is in vain to be-
lieve the gospel of Christ with such a kind or degree of
assent as they yield to other matters of tradition, and
finding that their faith of it is to them undiscernible,from
the belief they give to the truth of other stories, are in
danger not to believe at all, thinking not at all as good
as to no purpose ; or else, though indeed they do be-
lieve it, yet to think they do not, and to cast themselves
into wretched agonies and perplexities, as fearing they
have not that, without which it is impossible to please
God and obtain eternal happiness. Consideration of
this advantage, which the Devil probably may make of
this fancy, made me willing to insist somewhat largely
on the refutation of it.

10. I return now thither from whence I have digress-
ed, and assure you, concerning the grounds aforelaid,
which were, that there is a rule of faith whereby con-
troversies may be decided which are necessary to be de-
cided, and that this rule is universally infallible, that
notwithstanding any opinion I hold, touching faith or
any thing else, I may and do believe them as firmly as
you pretend to do ; and therefore you may build on in
God's name ; for by God's help I shall always embrace
whatsoever structure is naturally and rationally laid
upon them, whatsoever conclusion may to my under-
standing be evidently deduced from them. You say,
out of them it undeniably follows, that, of two disagree-
ing in matter of faith, the one cannot be saved but by

I 3

118 Papists uncharitable p. i. ch. i.

repentance or ignorance : I answer, by distinction of
those terms, "two dissenting in a matter of faith :" for it
may be either in a thing which is indeed a matter of faith
in the strictest sense, that is, something, the belief where-
of God requires under pain of damnation ; and so the
conclusion is true, though the consequence of it from your
former premises either is none at all, or so obscure that
I can hardly discern it: or it may be, as it often falls out,
concerning a thing which being indeed no matter of
faith is yet overvalued by the parties at variance, and
esteemed to be so : and in this sense it is neither conse-
quent nor true. The untruth of it I have already declar-
ed in my examination of your preface : the inconse-
quence of it is of itself evident ; for who ever heard of
a wilder collection than this —

'* God hath provided means sufficient to decide all
controversies in religion necessary to be de-
cided :
" This means is universally infallible :
" Therefore, of two that differ in any thing, which
they esteem a matter of faith, one cannot be
saved."
He that can find any connexion between these pro-
positions, I believe will be able to find good coherence
between the deaf plaintiff's accusation in the Greek epi-
gram, and the deaf defendant's answer, and the deaf
judge's sentence ; and to contrive them all into a for-
mal categorical syllogism.

11. Indeed, if the matter in agitation were plainly
decided by this infallible means of deciding controver-
sies, and the parties in variance knew it to be so, and
yet would stand out in their dissension ; this were, in
one of them, direct opposition to the testimony of God,
and undoubtedly a damnable sin. But if you take the
liberty to suppose what you please, you may very easily

ANSWER. in condemiuHg Protestmits, 119

conclude what you list. For who is so foolish as to
grant you these unreasonable postulates, that every emer-
gent controversy of faith is plainly decided by the means
of decision which God hath appointed, and that of the
parties litigant one is always such a convicted recusant
as you pretend ? Certainly, if you say so, having no bet-
ter warrant than you have or can have for it, this is
more proper and formal uncharitableness than ever was
charged upon you. Methinks, with much more reason,
and much more charity, you might suppose that many
of these controversies, which are now disputed among
Christians, (all which profess themselves lovers of Christ,
and truly desirous to know his will and do it,) are
either not decidable by that means which God has
provided, and so not necessary to be decided : or, if
they be, yet not so plainly and evidently, as to oblige
all men to hold one way : or, lastly, if decidable, and
evidently decided, yet you may hope that the erring
party, by reason of some veil before his eyes, some ex-
cusable ignorance or unavoidable prejudice, doth not
see the question to be decided against him, and so op-
poseth not that which he doth know to be the word of
God, but only that which you know to be so, and which
he might know, were he void of prejudice. Which is
a fault, I confess, but a fault which is incident even to
good and honest men very often : and not of such a
gigantic disposition as you make it, to fly directly upon
God Almighty, and to give him the lie to his face.

12. Ad J. 9 — 16. In all this long discourse, you only
tell us what you will do, but do nothing. Many
positions there are, but proofs of them you offer none,
but reserve them to the chapters following ; and there,
in their proper places, they shall be examined. The
sum of all your assumpts collected by yourself, §. 16, is
this :

i4

120 Papists uncharitable p. i. ch. i.

That " the infallible means of determining contro-
versies is the visible church."
That " the distinction of points fundamental and
not fundamental maketh nothing to the present
question."
That " to say the Creed containeth* all fundament-
als is neither pertinent nor true."
That " whosoever persist in division from the com-
munion and faith of the Roman church are
guilty of schism and heresy."
That " in regard of the precept of charity towards
one's self, protestants are in a state of sin, while
they remain divided from the Roman church."
To all these assertions I will content myself for the
present to oppose this one — that not one of them all is
true. Only I may not omit to tell you, that if the first
of them were as true as the pope himself desires it
should be, yet the corollary which you deduce from it
would be utterly inconsequent — that whosoever denies
any point proposed by the church is injurious to God's
Divine Majesty ; as if he could deceive, or be deceived.
For though your church were indeed as infallible a
propounder of Divine truths as it pretends to be, yet, if
it appeared not to me to be so, I might very well be-
lieve God most true, and your church most false. As,
though the Gospel of St. Matthew be the word of God ;
yet if I neither knew it to be so nor believed it, I might
believe in God, and yet think that Gospel a fable. Here-
after, therefore, I must entreat you to remember, that
our being guilty of this impiety depends not only upon
your being, but upon our knowing that you are so.
Neither must you argue thus — The church of Rome is
the infallible propounder of Divine verities, therefore
he that opposeth her calls God's truth in question ;
but thus rather — The church of Rome is so, and pro-

ANSWER. in condemning Protestants, 121

testants know it to be so ; therefore, in opposing her,
they impute to God that either he deceives them, or is
deceived himself. For as I may deny something vrhich
you upon your knowledge have affirmed, and yet never
disparage your honesty, if I never knew that you af-
firmed it : so I may be undoubtedly certain of God's
omniscience and veracity, and yet doubt of something
which he hath revealed ; provided I do not know nor
believe that he hath revealed it. So that though
your church be the appointed witness of God's revela-
tions, yet, until you know that we know she is so,
you cannot without foul calumny impute to us, that we
charge God blasphemously with deceiving or being de-
ceived. You will say, perhaps, that this is directly con-
sequent from our doctrine — that the church may err,
which is directed by God in all her proposals. True,
if we knew it to be directed by him, otherwise not ;
much less if we believe and know the contrary. But,
then, if it were consequent from our opinion, have
you so little charity as to say that men are justly
chargeable with all the consequences of their opin-
ions ? Such consequences, I mean, as they do not own,
but disclaim ; and if there were a necessity of doing
either, would much rather forsake their opinion than
embrace these consequences? What opinion is there
that draws after it such a train of portentous blas-
phemies, as that of the Dominicans by the judgment
of the best writers of your own order ? And will you
say now that the Dominicans are justly chargeable
with all those blasphemies? If not, seeing our case
(take it at the worst) is but the same, why should not
your judgment of us be the same? I appeal to all those
protestants that have gone over to your side, whether,
when they were most averse from it, they did ever deny
or doubt of God's omniscience or veracity; whether

122 Papists uncharitable p. i. ch. i.

they did ever believe, or were taught, that God did de-
ceive them, or was deceived himself? Nay, I provoke
to you yourself, and desire you to deal truly, and to
tell us, whether you do in your heart believe that we
do indeed not believe the eternal veracity of the eternal
Verity ? And if you judge so strangely of us, having no
better groimd for it than you have or can have, we
shall not need any farther proof of your uncharitable-
ness towards us, this being the extremity of true un-
charitableness. If not, then I hope, having no other
ground but this (which sure is none at all) to pronounce
us damnable heretics, you will cease to do so ; and here-
after (as, if your ground be true, you may do with more
truth and charity ) collect thus — They only err damnably
who oppose what they know God hath testified ; but pro-
testants sure do not oppose what they know God hath
testified ; at least we cannot with charity say they do :
therefore they either do not err damnably, or with
charity we cannot say they do so.

13. Ad §. 17. " Protestants," you say, "according to
their own grounds must hold, that of persons contrary
in whatsoever point of belief one part only can be saved,
therefore it is strangely done of them to charge papists
with want of charity for holding the same." The con-
sequence I acknowledge, but wonder much what it
should be that lays upon protestants any necessity to
do so ! You tell us it is their holding scripture the
sole rule of faith : for this, you say, obligeth them to
pronounce them damned that oppose any least point
delivered in Scripture. This I grant, if they oppose it
after sufficient declaration, so that either they know it
to be contained in scripture, or have no just probable
reason, and which may move an honest man to doubt
whether or no it be there contained. For to oppose,
in the first case, in a man that believes the scripture

ANSWER. in co7idemning Protestants. 123

to be the word of God, is to give God the lie. To op-
pose in the second, is to be obstinate against reason ;
and therefore a sin, though not so great as the former.
But then this is nothing to the purpose of the neces-
sity of damning all those that are of contrary belief ;
and that for these reasons : first, because the contrary
belief may be touching a point not at all mentioned in
scripture ; and such points, though indeed they be not
matters of faith, yet by men in variance are often over-
valued, and esteemed to be so. So that though it vrere
damnable to oppose any point contained in scripture,
yet persons of a contrary belief (as Victor and Poly cra-
tes, St. Cyprian and Stephen) might both be saved, be-
cause their contrary belief vras not touching any point
contained in scripture. Secondly, because the contrary
belief may be about the sense of some place of scripture
vrhich is ambiguous, and with probability capable of
divers senses ; and in such cases it is no marvel, and
sure no sin, if several men go several ways. Thirdly,
because the contrary belief may be concerning points
wherein scripture may, with so great probability, be
alleged on both sides, (which is a sure note of a point
not necessary,) that men of honest and upright hearts,
true lovers of God and of truth, such as desire above
all things to know God's will and to do it, may, with-
out any fault at all, some go one way and some another,
and some (and those as good men as either of the for-
mer) suspend their judgment, and expect some Elias to
solve doubts and reconcile repugnances. Now in all
such questions, one side or other (whichsoever it is)
holds that which indeed is opposite to the sense of the
scripture which God intended ; for it is impossible that
God should intend contradictions. But then this in-
tended sense is not so fully declared, but that they
which oppose it may verily believe that they indeed

124 Papists uncharitable ch. i. p. i.

maintain it, and have great show of reason to induce
them to believe so ; and therefore are not to be damned,
as men opposing that which they either know to be a
truth delivered in scripture, or have no probable rea-
son to believe the contrary; but rather, in charity,
to be acquitted and absolved, as men who endea-
vour to find the truth, but fail of it through human
frailty.

This ground being laid, the answer to your ensuing
interrogatories, which you conceive impossible, is very
obvious and easy.

14. To the first : " Whether it be not in any man
a grievous sin to deny any one truth contained in holy
writ?" I answer — Yes, if he knew it to be so, or
have no probable reason to doubt of it ; otherwise
not.

15. To the second : "Whether there be in such denial
any distinction between fundamental and not funda-
mental, sufficient to excuse from heresy ?" I answer —
Yes, there is such a distinction. But the reason is, be-
cause these points, either in themselves or by accident,
are fundamental, which are evidently contained in scrip-
ture, to him that knows them to be so : those not fun-
damental, which are there-hence deducible, but proba-
bly only, not evidently.

16. To the third : " Whether it be not impertinent
to allege the Creed as containing all fundamental points
of faith, as if believing it alone we were at liberty to deny
all other points of scripture ?" I answer. It was never
alleged to any such purpose ; but only as a sufficient,
or rather more than a sufficient, summary of those
points of faith, which were of necessity to be believed
actually and explicitly ; and that only of such which
were merely and purely credenda, and not agenda,

17. To the fourth, drawn as a corollary from the

ANSWER. in condemning Protestants. 125

former: "Whether this be not to say, that of persons
contrary in belief one part only can be saved ?" I an-
swer, By no means : for they may differ about points
not contained in scripture : they may differ about
the sense of some ambiguous text of scripture : they
may differ about some doctrines, for and against which
scriptures may be alleged with so great probability, as
may justly excuse either part from heresy and a self-
condemning obstinacy. And, therefore, though D. Pot-
ter do not take it ill, that you believe yourselves may
be saved in your religion, yet notwithstanding all that
hath yet been pretended to the contrary, he may justly
condemn you, and that out of your own principles, of
uncharitable presumption, for affirming, as you do,
that " no man can be saved out of it."

126 Charity Maintained hy Catholics. part

CHAPTER II.

What is that means whereby the revealed truths of God are
conveyed to our understandings and which must determine
controversies i7i faith and religion f

" vJF our estimation, respect, and reverence to holy-
scripture, even protestants themselves do in fact give
testimony, vrhile they possess it from us, and take it
upon the integrity of our custody. No cause imagin-
able could avert our will from giving the function of
supreme and sole judge to holy writ, if both the thing
were not impossible in itself, and if both reason and
experience did not convince our understanding, that by
this assertion contentions are increased and not ended.
We acknowledge holy scripture to be a most perfect
rule, for as much as a writing can be a rule : we only
deny that it excludes either Divine tradition, though
it be unwritten, or an external judge, to keep, to pro-
pose, to interpret it in a true, orthodox, and catholic
sense. Every single book, every chapter, yea, every
period of holy scripture, is infallibly true, and wants no
due perfection. But must we therefore infer, that all
other books of scripture are to be excluded, lest by ad-
dition of them we may seem to derogate from the per-
fection of the former? When the first books of the
Old and New Testament were written, they did not
exclude unwritten traditions, nor the authority of the
church to decide controversies : and who hath then so
altered their nature, and filled them with such jea-
lousies, as that now they cannot agree for fear of mu-
tual disparagement ? What greater wrong is it for the
written word to be compartner now with the unwritten,
than for the unwritten, which was once alone, to be af-

CHAP. II. Charity Maintained by Catholics. 127

terward joined with the written ? Who ever heard,
that to commend the fidelity of a keeper were to dis-
authorize the thing committed to his custody? Or
that, to extol the integrity and knowledge, and to
avouch the necessity of a judge in suits of law, were to
deny perfection in the law ? Are there not in common-
wealths, besides the laws, written and unwritten cus-
toms, judges appointed to declare both the one and the
other, as several occasions may require ?

2. " That the scripture alone cannot be judge in
controversies of faith, we gather very clearly from
the quality of a writing in general ; from the nature
of holy writ in particular, which must be believed as
true and infallible ; from the editions and translations
of it ; from the difficulty to understand it without
hazard of error; from the inconveniences that must
follow upon the ascribing of sole judicature to it ; and,
finally, from the confessions of our adversaries. And,
on the other side, all these difficulties ceasing, and all
other qualities requisite to a judge concurring in the
visible church of Christ our Lord, we must conclude,
that she it is to whom, in doubts concerning faith and
religion, all Christians ought to have recourse.

3. " The name, notion, nature, and properties of a
judge cannot in common reason agree to any mere
writing, which, be it otherwise in its kind never so
highly qualified with sanctity and infallibility, yet it
must ever be, as all writings are, deaf, dumb, and inani-
mate. By a judge, all wise men understand a person
endued with life and reason, able to hear, to examine,
to declare his mind to the disagreeing parties, in such
sort, as that each one may know whether the sentence
be in favour of his cause or against his pretence ;
and he must be appliable, and able to do all this, as the
diversity of controversies, persons, occasions, and cir-

128 Charity Maintained by Catholics* part i.

cumstances may require. There is a great and plain
distinction between a judge and a rule : for as in a
kingdom the judge has his rule to follow, which are
the received laws and customs ; so are they not fit or
able to declare or be judges to themselves, but that
office must belong to a living judge. The holy scrip-
ture may be and is a rule, but cannot be a judge,
because it being always the same, cannot declare itself
any one time, or upon any one occasion, more particu-
larly than upon any other ; and let it be read over an
hundred times, it will be still the same, and no more
fit alone to terminate controversies in faith, than the
law would be to end suits, if it were given over to the
fancy and gloss of every single man.

4. " This difference betwixt a judge and a rule
D. Potter perceived, when, more than once having styled
the scripture a judge, by way of correcting that term,
he adds, ' or rather a rule ;' because he knew that an
inanimate writing could not be a judge. From hence
also it was, that though protestants in their beginning
affirmed scripture alone to be the judge of controversies,
yet upon a more advised reflection they changed the
phrase, and said, that not scripture, but the Holy Ghost
speaking in scripture^ is judge in controversies ; a dif-
ference without a disparity. The Holy Ghost speaking
only in scripture is no more intelligible to us than the
scripture in which he speaks; as a man speaking only
in Latin can be no better understood than the tongue
wherein he speaketh. And therefore to say a judge is
necessary for deciding controversies about the meaning
of scripture, is as much as to say he is necessary to
decide what the Holy Ghost speaks in scripture. And
it were a conceit equally foolish and pernicious, if one
should seek to take away all judges in the kingdom
upon this nicety — that albeit laws cannot be judges, yet

CHAP. II. Charity Maintained by Catholics. 129

the law-maker speaking in the law may perform that
office, as if the law-maker speaking in the law were with
more perspicuity understood than the law whereby he
speaketh.

5. " But though some writing were granted to have
a privilege to declare itself upon supposition that it
were maintained in being, and preserved entire from
corruptions ; yet it is manifest, that no writing can
conserve itself, nor can complain, or denounce the fal-
sifier of it ; and therefore it stands in need of some
watchful and not-erring eye to guard it, by means of
whose assured vigilancy we may undoubtedly receive
it sincere and pure.

6. "And suppose it could defend itself from corruption,
how could it assure us that itself were canonical, and
of infallible verity ? By saying so ? Of this very affirma-
tion, there will remain the same question still; how it
can prove itself to be infallibly true ? Neither can there
ever be an end of the like multiplied demands, till we
rest in the external authority of some person or persons
bearing witness to the world that such or such a book
is scripture; and yet upon this point, according to
protestants, all other controversies in faith depend.

7. " That scripture cannot assure us that itself is
canonical scripture, is acknowledged by some protes-
tants in express words, and by all of them in deeds.
Mr. Hooker, whom D. Potter ranketh "^ among men of
great learning and judgment, saith, * Of things " neces-
sary, the very chiefest is to know what books we are to
esteem holy ; which point is confessed impossible for
the scripture itself to teach.' And this he proveth by
the same argument which we lately used, saying thus:
* It is not ** the word of God which doth or possibly

m p. 131. n Eccl. Polit. book I. ch, 14. p. 335, Oxf. edit. 1836.
o Ibid, book 2. ch. 4. p. 371. vol. i.

CHILI^INGWORTH, VOL. I. K

130 Charity Maintained hy Catholics. part i.

can assure us, that we do well to think it is his word.
For if any one book of scripture did give testimony to
all, yet still that scripture which giveth testimony to
the rest would require another scripture to give credit
unto it. Neither could we come to any pause whereon
to rest, unless besides scripture there were something
which might assure us,' &c. And this he acknowledges
to be the p church. By the way, if of things necessary
the very chiefest cannot possibly be taught by scripture,
as this man of so great learning and judgment affirmeth,
and demonstratively proveth, how can the protestant
clergy of England subscribe to their sixth article ?
wherein it is said of the scripture ; ' Whatsoever is not
read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be
required of any man, that it should be believed as an
article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary
to salvation :' and concerning their belief and profes-
sion of this article, they are particularly examined when
they are ordained priests and bishops. With Hooker,
his defendant Covel doth punctually agree. Whitaker
likewise confesseth, that the question about canonical
scriptures is defined to us, not by ^ testimony of the
private spirit, which,' saith he, 'being private and secret,
is ^ unfit to teach and refel others ;' but (as he ac-
knowledgeth) ' by the ^' ecclesiastical tradition : an ar-
gument,' saith he, ' whereby may be argued and
convinced, what books be canonical and what be not.'
Luther saith, * This ^ indeed the church hath, that she
can discern the word of God from the word of men :'
as Augustine confesseth ; * that he believed the gospel,
being moved by the authority of the church, which did

P Eccles. Polit. book 3. ch. 8. p. 459, &c. vol. i. Oxf. ed. 1836.

q Adv. Stap. 1. 2. c. 6. p. 270. 357.

^ Ibid. 1. 2. c. 4. p. 300.

8 L. de Cap. Babyl. torn. 2. Wittemb. f. 88.

CHAP. II. Charity Maintained by Catholics. 131

preach this to be the gospel.' Fulk teacheth, that the
' church * hath judgment to discern true writings from
counterfeit, and the word of God from the writing of
men ; and that this judgment she hath not of herself,
but of the Holy Ghost.' And to the end that you may
not be ignorant from what church you must receive
scriptures, hear your first patriarch Luther speaking
against them, who (as he saith) brought in anabaptism,
that so they might despite the pope. ' Verily,' saith he,
'these " men build upon a weak foundation : for by this
means they ought to deny the whole scripture, and the
office of preaching; for all these we have from the
pope; otherwise we must go make a new scripture,'

8. " But now in deeds they all make good, that
without the church's authority no certainty can be had
what scripture is canonical, while they cannot agree in
assigning the canon of the holy scripture. Of the
Epistle of St. James Luther hath these words : ' The ^
Epistle of James is contentious, swelling, dry, strawy,
and unworthy of an apostolical spirit.' Which censure
of Luther, Illiricus acknowledgeth and maintaineth.
Chemnitius teacheth, that the Second Epistle^ of
Peter, the Second and Third of John, the Epistle to
the Hebrews, the Epistle of James, the Epistle of Jude,
and the Apocalypse of John, are apocryphal, as not
having sufficient testimony'' of their authority, and
therefore that nothing in controversy can be proved
out of these y books. The same is taught by divers
other Lutherans : and if some other amongst them be

* In his Answer to a counterfeit Catholic, p. 5.

" Ep. con. Anab. ad duos Paroch. torn. ii. Ger. Witt-

V Praef. in Epist. Jac. in ed. Jen.

^ In Enchirid. p. 65.

^ In Exam. Cone. Trid. par. i. p. 55.

y Ibid.

k2

132 Charity Maintained by Catholics. parti.

of a contrary opinion since Luther's time, I wonder
what new infallible ground they can allege, why they
leave their master and so many of his prime scholars?
I know no better ground, than because they may with
as much freedom abandon him, as he was bold to alter
that canon of scripture which he found received in
God's church.

9. " What books of scripture the protestants of
England hold for canonical is not easy to affirm. In
their sixth article they say, ' In the name of the holy
scripture we do understand those canonical books of
the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was
never any doubt in the church.' What mean they by
these words— that by the church's consent they are
assured what scriptures be canonical? This were to
make the church judge, and not scriptures alone. Do
they only understand the agreement of the church to
be a probable inducement ? Probability is no sufficient
ground for an infallible assent of faith. By this rule
(of whose authority was never any doubt in the church)
the whole Book of Esther must quit the canon, because
some in the church have excluded it from the canon, as
^Melito Asianus, ^Athanasius, and '^ Gregory Nazian-
zen. And Luther (if protestants will be content that
he be in the church) saith, * The Jews ^ place the Book
of Esther in the canon ; which yet, if I might be judge,
doth rather deserve to be put out of the canon.' And
of Ecclesiastes he saith, * This ^ book is not full ; there
are in it many abrupt things : he wants boots and spurs,
that is, he hath no perfect sentence, he rides upon a
long reed, like me when I was in the monastery.'

z Apud Euseb. 1. 4. Hist. c. 26. '^ In Synops.

^ In Carm. de Genuinis Scrip.

c Lib. de serv. arb. con. Eras. torn. ii. Witt. foL 471.
^ In lat. serm, conviv. Fran, in 8 impr. anno 1571.

CHAP. II. Charity ^aiiituiiied by Catholics. 133

And much more is to be read in him ; who^ saith
further, that the said book was not written by Solomon,
but by Syraeh, in the time of the Maccabees, and that
it is like to the Talmud, (the Jews' Bible,) out of many
books heaped into one work, perhaps out of the library
of king Ptolomeus. And further he saith, that ^ he
does not believe all to have been done that there is set
down. And he teacheth the ^Book of Job to be as it
were an argument for a fable, (or comedy,) to set before
us an example of patience. And he*^ delivers this
general censure of the prophets' books — ' The sermons
of no prophet were written whole and perfect ; but
their disciples and auditors snatched now one sentence
and then another, and so put them all into one book,
and by this means the Bible was conserved.' If this
were so, the books of the prophets, being not written
by themselves, but promiscuously and casually by their
disciples, will soon be called in question. Are not
these errors of Luther fundamental ? and y^U if pro-
testants deny the infallibility of the church, upon what
certain ground can they disprove these Lutheran and
Luciferian blasphemies ? O godly reformer of the
Roman church ! But to return to our English canon of
scripture. In the New Testament, by the abovemen-
tioned rule, (of whose authority was never any doubt
in the church,) divers books of the New Testament must
be discanonized, to wit, all those of which some ancients
have doubted, and those which divers Lutherans have
of late denied. It is worth the observation, how the
beforementioned sixth article doth specify by name all
the books of the Old Testament which they hold for

e In Ger. colloq. Lutlieri ab Aurifabro ed. Fran. tit. de lib. Vet.
et Nov. Test. f. 379.

^ lb. tit. de Patriarch, et Proph. fol. 282.
8 Tit. de lib. Vet. et Nov. Test. ^ Yo\. 380.

K 3

134 Charity Maintained by Catholics. part i.

canonical ; but those of the New, without naming any
one, they shuffle over with this generality — * All the
books of the New Testament, as they are commonly
received, we do receive and account them canonical.'
The mystery is easy to be unfolded. If they had
descended to particulars, they must have contradicted
some of their chief est brethren. ' As they are com-
monly received,' &c. I ask, by whom ? By the church
of Rome ? Then by the same reason they must receive
divers books of the Old Testament which they reject.
By Lutherans ? Then with Lutherans they may deny
some books of the New Testament. If it be the greater
or less number of voices that must cry up or down
the canon of scripture, our Roman canon will prevail :
and among protestants the certainty of their faith must
be reduced to an uncertain controversy of fact, whether
the number of those who reject, or of those others who
receive such and such scriptures, be greater : their faith
must alter according to years and days. When Luther
first appeared, he and his disciples were the greater
number of that new church ; and so this claim (of
being * commonly received') stood for them, till Zuing-
lius and Calvin grew to some equal or greater number
than that of the Lutherans, and then this rule of
* commonly received' will canonize their canon against
the Lutherans. I would gladly know why, in the
former part of their article, they say both of the Old
and New Testament, ' In the name of the holy
scripture, we do understand those canonical books of
the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was
never any doubt in the church :' and in the latter part,
speaking again of the New Testament, they give a far
different rule, saying, ' All the books of the New
Testament, as they are commonly received, we receive,
and account them canonical.' This, I say, is a rule

CHAP. II. Charity Maintained hy Catholics 135

much different from the former (* of whose authority
was never any doubt in the church') ; for some books
might be said to be * commonly received,' although they
were sometime doubted of by some. If to be * commonly
received' pass for a good rule to know the canon of the
New Testament, why not of the Old ? Above all, we
desire to know upon what infallible ground in some
books they agree with us against Luther and divers
principal Lutherans, and in others jump with Luther
against us ? But seeing they disagree among themselves,
it is evident that they have no certain rule to know
the canon of scripture, in assigning whereof some of
them must of necessity err; because of contradictory
propositions, both cannot be true.

10. '* Moreover, the letters, syllables, words, phrase,
or matter contained in holy scripture, have no necessary
or natural connexion with Divine revelation or inspira-
tion: and therefore by seeing, reading, or understanding
them, we cannot infer that they proceed from God,
or be confirmed by Divine authority ; as because crea-
tures involve a necessary relation, connexion, and
depen dance upon their Creator, philosophers may, by
the light of natural reason, demonstrate the existence
of one prime cause of all things. In holy writ there
are innumerable truths not surpassing the sphere of
human wit, which are, or may be, delivered by pagan
writers, in the selfsame words and phrases as they are
in scripture. And as for some truths peculiar to
Christians, (for example, the mystery of the blessed
Trinity, &c.) the only setting them down in writing
is not enough to be assured that such a writing is the
undoubted word of God ; otherwise some sayings of
Plato, Trismegistus, Sibyls, Ovid, &c. must be esteemed
canonical scripture, because they fall upon some truths
proper to Christian religion. The internal light and

K 4

136 Charity Mcmitabied by Catholics. paet i.

inspiration, which directed and moved the authors of
canonical scripture, is a hidden quality infused into
their understanding and will, and hath no such parti-
cular sensible influence into the external writing, that
in it we can discover, or from it demonstrate, any such
secret light and inspiration ; and therefore to be assured
that such a writing is Divine, we cannot know from
itself alone, but by some other extrinsical authority.

11. "And here we appeal to any man of judgment,
whether it be not a vain brag of some protestants, to
tell us, ' that they wot full well what is scripture by
the light of scripture itself,' or, (as D. Potter words it,)
' by ^ that glorious beam of Divine light which shines
therein ;' even as our eye distinguisheth light from
darkness, without any other help than light itself; and
as our ear knows a voice by the voice itself alone.
But this vanity is refuted by what we said even now,
that the external scripture hath no apparent or neces-
sary connexion with Divine inspiration or revelation.
Will D. Potter hold all his brethren for blind men, for
not seeing that glorious beam of Divine light which
shines in scripture, about which they cannot agree?
Corporal light may be discerned by itself alone, as being
evident, proportionate, and connatural to our faculty of
seeing. That scripture is Divine, and inspired by God,
is a truth exceeding the natural capacity and compass
of man's understanding, to us obscure, and to be believed
by Divine faith, which, according to the apostle, is
argumentum ^ non apparentium, an argument, or
conviction of things not evident — and therefore no
wonder if scripture do not manifest itself by itself alone,
but must require some other means for applying it to
our understanding. Nevertheless, their own similitudes
and instances make against themselves : for suppose
^ Page 141. "^ Heb. xi. i.

CHAP. II. Charity Maintai7ied by Catholics. 137

a man had never read or heard of sun or moon, fire,
candle, &c., and should be brought to behold a light,
yet in such sort as that the agent or cause efficient from
which it proceeded were kept hidden from him ; could
such a one, by beholding the light, certainly know
whether it were produced by the sun, or moon, &c. ?
or if one heard a voice, and had never known the
speaker, could he know from whom in particular that
voice proceeded ? They who look upon scripture may
well see that some one wrote it ; but that it was writ-
ten by Divine inspiration, how shall they know ? Nay
they cannot so much as know who wrote it, unless
they first know the writer, and what hand he writes ; as
likewise I cannot know whose voice it is which I hear,
unless I first both know the person who speaks, and
with what voice he useth to speak : and yet even all
this supposed, I may perhaps be deceived. For there
may be voices so like, and hands so counterfeited, that
men may be deceived by them, as birds were by the
grapes of that skilful painter. Now since protestants
affirm, knowledge concerning God as our supernatural
end must be taken from scripture, they cannot in
scripture alone discern that it is his voice or writing,
because they cannot know from whom a writing or
voice proceeds, unless first they know the person who
speaketh or writeth : nay, I say more ; by scripture
alone they cannot so much as know that any person
doth in it or by it speak any thing at all ; because
one may write without intent to signify or affirm any
thing, but only to set down, or, as it were, paint such
characters, syllables, and words, as men are wont to
set copies, not caring what the signification of the
words imports; or as one transcribes a writing which
himself understands not ; or when one writes what
another dictates ; and in other such cases, wherein it

138 Charity Maintained by Catholics. part i.

is clear that the writer speaks or signifies nothing in
such his writing : and therefore by it we cannot hear
or understand his voice. With what certainty then
can any man affirm, that by scripture itself they can
see that the writers did intend to signify any thing at
all ; that they were apostles, or other canonical authors;
that they wrote their own sense, and not what was
dictated by some other man ; and finally and especially,
that they wrote by the infallible direction of the Holy
Ghost.

12. '* But let us be liberal, and for the present sup-
pose [not grant] that scripture is like to corporal light,
by itself alone able to determine and move our under-
standing to assent ; yet the similitude proves against
themselves : for light is not visible except to such as
have eyes, which are not made by the light, but must
be presupposed as produced by some other cause. And
therefore to hold the similitude, scripture can be clear
only to those who are endued with the eye of faith ; or,
as D. Potter above cited saith, to all that 'have' eyes
to discern the shining beams thereof;' that is, to the
believer, as immediately after he speaketh. Faith
then must not originally proceed from scripture, but it
is to be presupposed, before we can see the light there-
of; and consequently there must be some other means
precedent to scripture to beget faith, which can be no
other than the church.

13. " Others affirm, that they know canonical scrip-
tures to be such by the title of the books. But how
shall we know such inscriptions or titles to be infallibly
true? From this their answer our argument is strength-
ened, because divers apocryphal writings have appeared
under the titles and names of sacred authors; as, the
Gospel of Thomas, mentioned by St. Augustine™ ; the

' Page 141. »» Cont. Adimantum, c. 11.

CHAP. II. Charity Maintained by Catholics. 189

Gospel of Peter, which the Nazarenes did use, as The-
odoret" witriesseth ; with which Seraphion, a catholic
bishop, was for some time deceived, as maybe read inEu-
sebius," who also speaketh of the Apocalypse of Peter ^\
The like may be said of the Gospels of Barnabas, Bar-
tholomew, and other such writings specified by pope
Gelasius^i. Protestants reject likewise some part of
Esther and Daniel, which bear the same titles with the
rest of those books, as also both we and they hold for
apocryphal the third and fourth books which go un-
der the name of Esdras, and yet both of us receive his
first and second book : wherefore titles are not sufficient
assurances what books be canonical ; which D. CoveK
acknowledgeth in these words : ' It is not the word of
God which doth or possibly can assure us, that we do
well to think it is the word of God ; the first outward
motion leading men so to esteem of the scripture is the
authority of God's church, which teacheth us to receive
Mark's Gospel, who was not an apostle, and to refuse
the Gospel of Thomas, who was an apostle ; and to re-
tain Luke's Gospel, who saw not Christ, and to reject
the Gospel of Nicodemus, who saw him.'

14. "Another answer, or rather objection, they are
wont to bring — that the scripture being a principle
needs no proof among Christians. So D. Potter^ But
this is either a plain begging of the question, or mani-
festly untrue, and is directly against their own doctrine
and practice. If they mean that scripture is one of
those principles which being the first and most known
in all sciences cannot be demonstrated by other princi-
ples, they suppose that which is in question, whether
there be not some principle (for example, the church)

" L. 2. Haeretic. Fab. o Lib. 6. c. lo.

P Lib. 6. c. IT. q Dist. Can. Sancta Romana.

r In his Defence, art. 4. p. 31. s Page 234.

140 Charity Mahitained by Catholics. part i.

whereby we may come to the knowledge of scripture.
If they intend that scripture is a principle, but not the
first and most known in Christianity, then scripture
may be proved. For principles that are not the first,
nor known of themselves, may and ought to be proved
before we can yield assent either to them, or to other
verities depending on them. It is repugnant to their
own doctrine and practice, inasmuch as they are wont
to affirm that one part of scripture may be known to
be canonical, and may be interpreted by another. And
since every scripture is a principle sufficient upon
which to ground Divine faith, they must grant that
one principle may and sometimes must be proved by
another. Yea this their answer, upon due pon deration,
falls out to prove what we affirm : for since all prin-
ciples cannot be proved, we must (that our labour may
not be endless) come at length to rest in some principle
which may not require any other proof: such is tradi-
tion, which involves an evidence of fact ; and from
hand to hand, and age to age, bringing us up to the
times and persons of the apostles, and our Saviour him-
self cometh to be confirmed by all those miracles and
other arguments, whereby they convinced their doctrine
to be true. Wherefore the ancient fathers avouch, that
we must receive the sacred canon upon the credit of
God's church. St. Athanasius^ saith, that only four
Gospels are to be received, because the canons of the
holy and catholic church have so determined. The third
council of Carthage", having set down the books of
holy scripture, gives the reason, because ' We have re-
ceived from our fathers that those are to be read in the
church.' St. Augustine", speaking of the Acts of the
Apostles, saith, ' To which book I must give credit, if

* In Synops. ^ Can. 47. x Cont. ep. Fundam. c. 5.

CHAP. II. Charity Maintained hy Catholics, 141

I give credit to the gospel, because the catholic church
doth alike recommend to me both these books.' And
in the same place he hath also these words : * I would
not believe the gospel, unless the authority of the ca-
tholic church did move me.' A saying so plain, that
Zuinglius is forced to cry out, ' Here^ I implore your
equity to speak freely, whether the saying of Augustine
seems not over bold, or else unadvisedly to have fallen
from him.'

15. " But suppose they were assured what books
were canonical, this will little avail them, unless they be
likewise certain in what language they remain uncor-
rupted, or what translations be true. Calvin^ acknow-
ledgeth corruption in the Hebrew text ; which if it be
taken without points is so ambiguous, that scarcely
any one chapter, yea period, can be securely under-
stood without the help of some translation : if with
points, these were, after St. Hierome's time, invented by
the perfidious Jews, who either by ignorance might
mistake, or upon malice force the text to favour their
impieties. And that the Hebrew text still retains much
ambiguity, is apparent by the disagreeing translations
of Novelists ; which also proves the Greek, for the New
Testament, not to be void of doubtfulness, as Calvin*
confesseth it to be corrupted. And although both the
Hebrew and Greek were pure, what doth this help, if
only scripture be the rule of faith, and so very few be
able to examine the text in these languages ? All then
must be reduced to the certainty of translations into
other tongues, wherein no private man having any pro-
mise or assurance of infallibility, protestants, who rely
upon scripture alone, will find no certain ground for
their faith : as accordingly Whitaker affirmeth, * Those

y Tom. T. fol. 135. z Instit. c. 6. sect, 1 1.

a Ibid. c. 7. sect. 12.

142 Charity Maintained hy Catholics. part i.

who understand not the Hebrew and Greek do err often
and unavoidably^.'

16. ^' Now concerning the translations of protestants,
it will be sufficient to set down what the laborious, ex-
act, and judicious author of the Protestants' Apology,
&c., dedicated to our late king James, of famous me-
mory, hath to this purpose^ : ' To omit,' saith he, * par-
ticulars, whose recital would be infinite, and to touch
this point but generally only, the translation of the
New Testament by Luther is condemned by Andreas
Osiander, Keckermannus, and Zuinglius, who saith
hereof to Luther — Thou dost corrupt the word of God,
thou art seen to be a manifest and common corrupter
of the holy scriptures ; how much are we ashamed of
thee, who have hitherto esteemed thee beyond all mea-
sure, and now prove thee to be such a man !' And in
like manner doth Luther reject the translation of the
Zuinglians, terming them, in matter of divinity, fools,
asses, antichrists, deceivers, and of ass-like understand-
ing. Insomuch that when Froschoverus, the Zuinglian
printer of Zurich, sent him a Bible translated by the di-
vines there, Luther would not receive the same; but send-
ing it back rejected it, as the protestant writers^ Hospini-
anus and Lavatherus, witness. The translation set
forth by (Ecolampadius, and the divines of Basil, is re-
proved by Beza, who aflftrmeth^ that the Basil trans-
lation * is in many places wicked, and altogether differ-
ing from the mind of the Holy Ghost.' The translation
of Castalio is condemned by Beza, as being sacrilegious,
wicked, and ethnical. As concerning Calvin's transla-
tion, that learned protestant writer, Carolus Molinaeus
saith thereof, * Calvin in his harmony maketh the text

^ Lib. de sancta Scriptura, p. 523.

c Tract. I. sect. 10. subd. 4. joined with tract. 2. c. 2. sect. 10.
subd. 2.

CHAP. II. Charity Maintained by Catholics. 143

of the gospel to leap up and down ;' he useth violence
to the letter of the gospel ; and, beside this, addeth to
the text. As touching Beza's translation, (to omit the
dislike had thereof by Selneccerus, the German protest-
ant of the university of Jena,) the aforesaid Molinaeus
saith of him — 'de facto mutat textum, he actually
changeth the text' — and giveth farther sundry instances
of his corruptions t as also Castalio, that learned Cal-
vinist, and most learned in the tongues, reprehendeth
Beza in a whole book of this matter, and saith, * that to
note all his errors in translation would require a great
volume.' And M. Parker saith, ' As for the Geneva
Bibles, it is to be wished that either they may be purged
from those manifold errors which are both in the text
and in the margent, or else utterly prohibited : all
which confirmeth your majesty's grave and learned
censure, in your thinking the Geneva translation to be
worst of all ; and that in the marginal notes annexed
to the Geneva translation some are very partial, untrue,
seditious,' &c. Lastly, concerning the English transla-
tion the puritans say, " Our translation of the Psalms,
comprised in our Book of Common Prayer, doth in ad-
dition, substraction, and alteration, differ from the truth
of the Hebrew in two hundred places at the least : inso-
much as they do therefore profess to rest doubtful,
whether a man with a safe conscience may subscribe
thereunto.' And Mr. Carlisle saith of the English
translators, that they *have depraved the sense, obscured
the truth, and deceived the ignorant; that in many
places they do detort the scriptures from the right
sense ;' and that * they shew themselves to love darkness
more than light, falsehood more than truth.' And the
ministers of Lincoln diocese give their public testimony,
terming the English translation, 'a translation that
taketh away from the text ; that addeth to the text ;

144 Charity Maintained hy Catholics. part i.

and that sometime to the changing or obscuring of the
meaning of the Holy Ghost.' Not without cause, there-
fore, did your majesty affirm, that you ' could never yet
see a Bible well translated into English.' Thus far the
author of the Protestants' Apology, &c. And I cannot
forbear to mention, in particular, that famous corruption
of Luther, who in the text where it is said, (Rom. iii.
28,) We account a man to be justified hy faith, with-
out the works of the law^ in favour of justification by
faith alone, translateth, justified hy faith alone. As
likewise the falsification of Zuinglius is no less notori-
ous, who, in the Gospels of St. Matthew, Mark, and
Luke, and in St. Paul, in place of This is my hody. This
is my hlood, translates. This signifies my hody. This
signifies my hlood. And here let protestants consider
duly of these points : salvation cannot be hoped for with-
out true faith : faith, according to them, relies upon
scripture alone : scripture must be delivered to most of
them by the translations : translations depend on the
skill and honesty of men, in whom nothing is more cer-
tain than a most certain possibility to err; and no
greater evidence of truth, than that it is evident some
of them embrace falsehood, by reason of their contrary
translations. What then remaineth, but that truth,
faith, salvation, and all, must in them rely upon a fal-
lible and uncertain ground ? How many poor souls are
lamentably seduced, while from preaching ministers
they admire a multitude of texts of Divine scripture,
but are indeed the false translations and corruptions of
erring men ! Let them therefore, if they will be assured
of true scriptures, fly to the always visible catholic
church, against which the gates of hell can never so far
prevail, as that she shall be permitted to deceive the
Christian world with false scriptures. And Luther
himself, by unfortunate experience, was at length forced

CHAP. II. Charity Maintained by Catholics. 145

to confess thus much, saying, * If the world ^ last longer,
it will be again necessary to receive the decrees of
councils, and to have recourse to them, by reason of
divers interpretations of scripture which now reign.'
On the contrary side, the translation approved by the
Roman church is commended even by our adversaries;
and D. Covel in particular saith, * that it was used in
the church one thousand^ three hundred years ago,
and doubteth not to prefer that^ translation before
others.' Insomuch, that whereas the English transla-
tions be many, and among themselves disagreeing,
he concludeth, that of all those the approved translation
authorized by the church of England is that which
Cometh nearest to the vulgar, and is commonly called
the Bishops' Bible. So that the truth of that transla-
tion which we use must be the rule to judge of the
goodness of their Bibles : and therefore they are
obliged to maintain our translation, if it were but for
their own sake.

17. " But doth indeed the source of their manifold
uncertainties stop here ? No ; the chiefest difficulty
remains, concerning the true meaning of scripture ;
for attaining whereof if protestants had any certainty,
they could not disagree so hugely as they do. Hence
Mr. Hooker saith, ' We are s right sure of this, that
nature, scripture, and experience, have all taught the
world to seek for the ending of contentions by submit-
ting itself unto some judicial and definitive sentence,
whereunto neither part that contendeth may under any
pretence or colour refuse to stand.' Doctor Field's words
are remarkable to this purpose : ' Seeing,' saith he, ' the

d Lib. coiit. Zuiiig. de verit. corp. Christ, in Euchar.
e In his Answer unto M. John Burges, page 94. ^ Ibid,
g In his preface to his books of Eccl. Polity, ch. 6. p. 206. Oxf.
edit. 1836.

CHILLINGWORTH, VOL. I. L

146 Charity Maintained by Catholics. part i.

controversies ^ of religion in our times are grown in
number so many, and in nature so intricate, that few
have time and leisure, fewer strength of understanding,
to examine them ; what remaineth for men desirous of
satisfaction in things of such consequence, but diligently
to search out which among all the societies in the
world is that blessed company of holy ones, that house-
hold of faith, that spouse of Christ and church of the
living God, which is the pillar and ground of truth,
that so they may embrace her communion, follow her
directions, and rest in her judgment ?'

18. " And now that the true interpretation of scrip-
ture ought to be received from the church, it is also
proved, by what we have already demonstrated, that
she it is who must declare what books be true scripture;
wherein if she be assisted by the Holy Ghost, why
should we not believe her to be infallibly directed con-
cerning the true meaning of them? Let protestants,
therefore, either bring some proof out of scripture that
the church is guided by the Holy Ghost in discerning
true scripture, and not in delivering the true sense
thereof; or else give us leave to apply against them
the argument which St. Augustine opposed to the
Manicheans in these words : ' I would not believe ^ the
gospel, unless the authority of the church did move
me. Them, therefore, whom I obeyed, saying. Believe
the gospel, why should I not obey, saying to me. Do
not believe Manicheus (Luther, Calvin, &c.) ? Choose
what thou pleasest. If thou shalt say. Believe the
catholics ; they warn me not to give any credit to you.
If therefore I believe them, I cannot believe thee. If

^ In his Treatise of the Church, in his Epistle Dedicatory to the
L. Archbishop.

i Cont. Ep. Fund. cap. 5.

CHAP. II. Charity Maintained by Catholics. 147

thou say, Do not believe the catholics, thou shalt not
do well in forcing me to the faith of Manicheus, because
by the preaching of catholics I believed the gospel
itself. If thou say, You did well to believe them
[catholics] commending the gospel, but you did not
well to believe them discommending Manicheus ; dost
thou think me so very foolish, that without any reason
at all I should believe what thou wilt, and not believe
what thou wilt not ?' And do not protestants perfectly
resemble these men, to whom St. Augustine spake,
when they will have men to believe the Roman church
delivering scripture, but not to believe her condemning
Luther and the rest ? Against whom, when they first
opposed themselves to the Roman church, St. Augustine
may have seemed to have spoken no less prophetically
than doctrinally, when he said, ' Why should I not
most^ diligently inquire what Christ commanded of
them before all others, by whose authority I was moved
to believe, that Christ commanded any good thing?
Canst thou better declare to me what he said, whom I
would not have thought to have been, or to be, if the
belief thereof had been recommended by thee to me ?
This therefore I believed by fame, strengthened with
celebrity, consent, antiquity. But every one may see
that you, so few, so turbulent, so new, can produce
nothing deserving authority. What madness is this ?
Believe them [catholics] that we ought to believe
Christ ; but learn of us what Christ said. Why, I
beseech thee? Surely, if they [catholics] were not at
all, and could not teach me any thing, I would more
easily persuade myself that I were not to believe Christ,
than that I should learn any thing concerning him
from any other than them by whom I believed him.'

^ Lib. de Util. Cre. cap. 14.
L 2

148 Charity Maintained hy Catholics, parti.

If therefore we receive the knowledge of Christ and
scriptures from the church, from her also we take his
doctrine, and the interpretation thereof.

19. " But besides all this, the scripture cannot be
judge of controversies ; who ought to be such, as that
to him not only the learned or veterans, but also the
unlearned and novices, may have recourse : for these
being capable of salvation, and endued with faith of
the same nature with that of the learned, there must
be some universal judge, which the ignorant may un-
derstand, and to whom the greatest clerks must
submit. Such is the church ; and the scripture is not
such.

20. " Now the inconveniences which follow by re-
ferring all controversies to scripture alone are very
clear : for by this principle all is finally in very deed
and truth reduced to the internal private spirit, because
there is really no middle way betwixt a public external
and a private internal voice ; and whosoever refuseth
the one must of necessity adhere to the other.

21. "This tenet also of protestants, by taking the
office of judicature from the church, comes to confer it
upon every particular man, who, being driven from
submission to the church, cannot be blamed if he trust
himself as far as any other, his conscience dictating,
that wittingly he means not to cozen himself, as others
maliciously may do : which inference is so manifest,
that it hath extorted from divers protestants the open
confession of so vast an absurdity. Hear Luther:
* The governors of ^ churches, and pastors of Christ's
sheep, have indeed power to teach, but the sheep ought
to give judgment, whether they propound the voice of
Christ or of aliens.' Lubbertus saith, ' As we have "*

1 Tom. 2. Wittemb. fol. 375.

^ In lib. de Principiis Christian. Dogm. 1.6. c. 3.

CHAP. II. Charity Maintained hy Catholics. 149

demonstrated that all public judges may be deceived
in interpreting ; so we affirm that they may err in
judging. All faithful men are private judges, and they
also have power to judge of doctrines and interpre-
tations. Whitaker, even of the unlearned, saith, * They
" ought to have recourse unto the more learned ; but
in the mean time we must be careful not to attribute
to them over much, but so that still we retain our own
freedom.' Bilson also affirmeth, that * the people must®
be discerners and judges of that which is taught.'
This same pernicious doctrine is delivered by Brentius,
Zanchius, Cartwright, and others exactly cited by
PBrerely ; and nothing is more common in every
protestant's mouth, than that he admits of fathers,
councils, church, &c. as far as they agree with scrip-
ture ; which upon the matter is himself. Thus heresy
ever falls upon extremes : it pretends to have scripture
alone for judge of controversies ; and in the mean time
sets up as many judges as there are men and women
in the Christian world. What good statesmen would
they be, who should ideate or fancy such a common-
wealth, as these men have framed to themselves a
church ! They verify what St. Augustine objecteth
against certain heretics : * You see ^ that you go about
to overthrow all authority of scripture, and that every
man's mind may be to himself a rule what he is to
allow or disallow in every scripture.'

22. " Moreover, what confusion to the church, what
danger to the commonwealth, this denial of the au-
thority of the church may bring, I leave to the
consideration of any judicious, indifferent man. I will
only set down some words of D. Potter, who, speaking
of the proposition of revealed truths, sufficient to prove

n De Sacra Scriptura, 529. o In his true Difference, part 2.
P Tract. 2. cap. i. sect. 1 . 1 Lib. 32. cont. Faust.

L 3

150 Charity Maintained by Catholics, part i.

him that gainsayeth them to be an heretic, saith thus :
* This proposition ** of revealed truths is not by the infal-
lible determination of pope or church,' [pope and
church being excluded, let us hear what more secure
rule he will prescribe,] * but by whatsoever means a man
may be convinced in conscience of Divine revelation.
If a preacher do clear any point of faith to his hearers ;
if a private Christian do make it appear to his neighbour
that any conclusion or point of faith is delivered by Di-
vine revelation of God's word ; if a man himself (without
any teacher) by reading the scriptures, or hearing them
read, be convinced of the truth of any such conclusion ;
this is a sufficient proposition to prove him that gain-
sayeth any such proof to be an heretic, an obstinate
opposer of the faith.' Behold what goodly safe pro-
pounders of faith arise in place of God's universal visi-
ble church, which must yield to a single preacher, a
neighbour, a man himself if he can read, or at least
have ears to hear scripture read ! Verily I do not see
but that every well-governed civil commonwealth ought
to concur towards the exterminating of this doctrine,
whereby the interpretation of scripture is taken from
the church and conferred upon every man, who, whatso-
ever is pretended to the contrary, may be a passionate
seditious creature.

23. " Moreover, there was no scripture or written
word for about two thousand years from Adam to
Moses, whom all acknowledge to have been the first
author of canonical scripture : and again, for about two
thousand years more, from Moses to Christ our Lord,
holy scripture was only among the people of Israel ;
and yet there were Gentiles endued in those days with
Divine faith, as appeareth in Job and his friends.
Wherefore during so many ages the church alone was

r Page 247.

CHAP. II. Charity Maintained by Catholics. 151

the decider of controversies, and instructor of the faith-
ful. Neither did the word written by Moses deprive
that church of her former infallibility, or other qualities
requisite for a judge : yea, D. Potter acknowledgeth,
that besides the law, there was a living judge in the
Jewish church, endued with an absolutely infallible di-
rection in cases .of moment ; as all points belonging to
Divine faith are. Now the church of Christ our Lord
was before the scriptures of the New Testament, which
were not written instantly, nor all at one time, but suc-
cessively upon several occasions ; and some after the
decease of most of the apostles ; and after they were
written, they were not presently known to all churches ;
and of some there was doubt in the church for some
ages after our Saviour. Shall we then say, that accord-
ing as the church by little and little received holy scrip-
ture, she was by the like degrees divested of her pos-
sessed infallibility and power to decide controversies in
religion ? that some churches had one judge of contro-
versies, and others another? That with months or years,
as new canonical scripture grew to be published, the
church altered her whole rule of faith, or judge of con-
troversies ? After the apostles' time, and after the writ-
ing of scriptures, heresies would be sure to rise, requir-
ing in God's church, for their discovery and condemna-
tion, infallibility, either to write new canonical scrip-
ture, as was done in the apostles' time by occasion of
emergent heresies ; or infallibility to interpret scrip-
tures already written, or, without scripture, by Divine
unwritten traditions, and assistance of the Holy Ghost,
to determine all controversies ; as Tertullian saith,
' The soul ^ is before the letter ; and speech before
books ; and sense before style.' Certainly such addi-
tion of scripture, with derogation or substraction from
s De»Test. Aiiim. cap. 5.
L 4

152 Charity Maintained hy Catholics. tart i.

the former power and infallibility of the church, would
have brought to the world division in matters of faith,
and the church had rather lost than gained by holy
scripture; (which ought to be far from our tongues and
thoughts ;) it being manifest, that for decision of con-
troversies infallibility settled in a living judge is in-
comparably more useful and fit, than if it were con-
ceived as inherent in some inanimate writing. Is there
such repugnance betwixt infallibility in the church, and
existence of scripture, that the production of the one must
be the destruction of the other ? Must the church wax
dry, by giving to her children the milk of sacred writ ?
No, no : her infallibility was and is derived from an in-
exhausted fountain. If protestants will have the scrip-
ture alone for their judge, let them first produce some
scripture affirming, that by the entering thereof infal-
libility went out of the church. D. Potter may re-
member what himself teacheth ; that the church is still
endued with infallibility in points fundamental ; and,
consequently, that infallibility in the church doth well
agree with the truth, the sanctity, yea, with the suffici-
ency of scripture, for all matters necessary to salvation.
I would therefore gladly know out of what text he
imagineth that the church, by the coming of scripture,
was deprived of infallibility in some points and not in
others ? He affirmeth, that the Jewish synagogue re-
tained infallibility in herself, notwithstanding the writ-
ing of the Old Testament : and will he so unworthily
and unjustly deprive the church of Christ of infallibility
by reason of the New Testament? Especially if we
consider that in the Old Testament, laws, ceremonies,
rites, punishments, judgments, sacraments, sacrifices,
&c. were more particularly and minutely delivered to
the Jews, than in the New Testament is done ; our
Saviour leaving the determination or declaration of par-

CHAP. II. Charity Maintahied hy Catholics. 163

ticulars to his spouse the church, which therefore stands
in need of infallibility more than the Jewish synagogue.
D. Potter ^ against this argument, drawn from the
power and infallibility of the synagogue, objects, that we
might as well infer, that * Christians must have one so-
vereign prince over all, because the Jews had one chief
judge.' But the disparity is very clear : the synagogue
was a type and figure of the church of Christ ; not so
their civil government of Christian commonwealths or
kingdoms : the church succeeded to the synagogue, but
not Christian princes to Jewish magistrates : and the
church is compared to a house, or a family"; to an
army^, to a bodyy, to a kingdom % &c., all which require
one master, one general, one head, one magistrate,
one spiritual king ; as our blessed Saviour with Jiet
unum ovile joined unus pastor^; one sheepfold, one
pastor : but all distinct kingdoms or commonwealths
are not one army, family, &c. And finally, it is necessary
to salvation that all have recourse to one church ; but
for temporal weal, there is no need that all submit or
depend upon one temporal prince, kingdom, or common-
wealth : and therefore our Saviour hath left to his
whole church, as being one, one law, one scripture, the
same sacraments, &;c. Whereas kingdoms have their
several laws, different governments, diversity of powers,
magistracy, &c. And so this objection returneth upon
D. Potter. For as in the one community of the Jews
there was one power and judge, to end debates and re-
solve difficulties ; so in the church of Christ, which is
one, there must be some one authority to decide all
controversies in religion.

!^4. " This discourse is excellently proved by ancient

t Page 24. u Heb. xiii. » Cant. ii.

y I Cor. X. Ephes. iv. z Matt. xii. a John c. x.

154 Charity Mamtained by Catholics. part i.

St. Irenaeus^ in these words : ' What if the apostles
had not left scriptures, ought we not to have followed
the order of tradition which they delivered to those
to whom they committed the churches ? To which order
many nations yield assent who believe in Christ, having
salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit of God,
without letters or ink, and diligently keeping ancient
tradition. It is easy to receive the truth from God's
churchy seeing the apostles have most fully deposited
in her, as in a rich storehouse, all things belonging to
truth. For what? If there should arise any contention
of some small question, ought we not to have recourse
to the most ancient churches, and from them to receive
what is certain and clear concerning the present ques-
tion?'

25. " Besides all this, the doctrine of protestants is
destructive of itself: for either they have certain and
infallible means not to err in interpreting scripture, or
they have not : if not, then the scripture (to them) can-
not be a sufficient ground for infallible faith, nor a meet
judge of controversies. If they have certain infallible
means, and so cannot err in their interpretations of scrip-
tures, then they are able with infallibility to hear, ex-
amine, and determine all controversies of faith ; and so
they may be, and are, judges of controversies, although
they use the scriptures as a rule. And thus, against
their own doctrine, they constitute another judge of
controversies beside scripture alone.

26. " Lastly, I ask D. Potter whether this assertion,
* Scripture alone is judge of all controversies in faith,'
be a fundamental point of faith or no? He must be
well advised before he say, that it is a fundamental
point : for he will have against him as many protest-
ants as teach that by scripture alone it is impossible

^ Lib. V. c. 4.

CHAP. II. Charity Maintained by Catholics, 155

to know what books be scripture ; which yet, to pro-
testants, is the most necessary and chief point of all
other. D. Covel expressly saith, * Doubtless^ it is a
tolerable opinion in the church of Rome, if they go no
further, as some of them do not,' [he should have said,
as none of them do,] * to affirm, that the scriptures are
holy and Divine in themselves, but so esteemed by us,
for the authority of the church.' He will likewise op-
pose himself to those his brethren, who grant, that con-
troversies cannot be ended without some external living
authority, as we noted before. Besides, how can it be
in us a fundamental error to say the scripture alone is
not judge of controversies, seeing (notwithstanding this
our belief) we use for interpreting of scripture all the
means which they prescribe ; as prayer, conferring of
places, consulting the originals, &c., and to these add
the instruction and authority of God's church, which
even by his confession cannot err damnably, and may
afford us more help than can be expected from the in-
dustry, learning, or wit of any private person : and
finally, D. Potter grants that the church of Rome doth
not maintain any fundamental error against faith ; and
consequently he cannot affirm that our doctrine, in this
present controversy, is damnable. If he answer, that
their tenet about the scriptures being the only judge
of controversies is not a fundamental point of faith ;
then, as he teacheth that the universal church may err
in points not fundamental, so I hope he will not deny
but particular churches and private men are much more
obnoxious to error in such points ; and in particular in
this, that scripture alone is judge of controversies : and
so the very principle upon which their whole faith is
grounded remains to them uncertain. And on the other
side, for the selfsame reason, they are not certain but that
c 111 his Defence of Mr. Hooker's Books, art. 4. p. 3 1 .

156 Charity Maintained by Catholics, part i.

the church is judge of controversies ; which if she be,
then their case is lamentable who in general deny her
this authority, and in particular controversies oppose
her definitions. Besides, among public conclusions de-
fended in Oxford in the year 1633, to the questions,
* Whether the church have authority to determine con-
troversies in faith,' and ' to interpret holy scripture ?'
the answer to both is affirmative.

27. " Since then the visible church of Christ our
Lord is that infallible means whereby the revealed
truths of Almighty God are conveyed to our under-
standing ; it followeth, that to oppose her definitions is
to resist God himself ; which blessed St. Augustine
plainly affirmeth, when speaking of the controversy
about rebaptization of such as were baptized by here-
tics, he saith, * This^ is neither openly nor evidently
read, neither by you nor by me ; yet if there were any
wise man, of whom our Saviour had given testimony,
and that he should be consulted in this question, we
should make no doubt to perform what he should say,
lest we might seem to gainsay not him so much as Christ,
by whose testimony he was recommended. Now Christ
beareth witness to his church.' And a little after, ' Who-
soever refuseth to follow the practice of the church
doth resist our Saviour himself, who by his testimony
recommends the church.' I conclude therefore with this
argument : Whosoever resisteth that means which infal-
libly proposeth to us God's word or revelation, commits a
sin, which unrepented excludes salvation; but whosoever
resisteth Christ's visible church doth resist that means
which infallibly proposeth to us God's word or revelation :
therefore, whosoever resisteth Christ's visible church
commits a sin which unrepented excludes salvation.
Now what visible church was extant when Luther began
d De Unit. Eccles. c. 22.

CHAP. II. Charity Maintained by Catholics, 157

his pretended reformation, whether it were the Roman
or protestant church ; and whether he and other pro-
testants do not oppose that visible church, which was
spread over the world before and in Luther's time, is
easy to be determined, and importeth every one most
seriously to ponder, as a thing whereon eternal salva-
tion dependeth. And because our adversaries do here
most insist upon the distinction of points fundamental
and not fundamental, and in particular teach that the
church may err in points no^ fundamental, it will be
necessary to examine the truth and weight of this
evasion, which shall be done in the next chapter."

AN
ANSWER TO THE SECOND CHAPTER:

Concerning the means whereby the revealed truths of God
are conveyed to our understajiding ; and which must de-
termine controversies in faith and religion.

Ad J. 1. He that would usurp an absolute lordship
and tyranny over any people, need not put himself to
the trouble and difficulty of abrogating and disannul-
ling the laws, made to maintain the common liberty ;
for he may frustrate their intent, and compass his own
design as well, if he can get the power and authority to
interpret them as he pleases, and add to them what he
pleases, and to have his interpretations and additions
stand for laws ; if he can rule his people by his laws,
and his laws by his lawyers. So the church of Rome,
to establish her tyranny over men's consciences, needed
not either to abolish or corrupt the holy scriptures, the
pillars and supporters of Christian liberty ; (which in
regard of the numerous multitude of copies dispersed
through all places, translated into almost all languages.

158 Scripture the only Rule p. i, ch. ii.

guarded with all solicitous care and industry, had
been an impossible attempt ;) but the more expedite
way, and therefore more likely to be successful, was
to gain the opinion and esteem of the public and
authorized interpreter of them, and the authority of
adding to them what doctrine she pleased, under the
title of traditions or definitions. For by this means
she might both serve herself of all those clauses of
scripture which might be drawn to cast a favour-
able countenance upon her ambitious pretences, which
in case the scripture had been abolished she could
not have done; and yet be secure enough of having
either her power limited, or her corruptions and
abuses reformed by them ; this being once settled
in the minds of men — That unwritten doctrines, if
proposed by her, were to be received with equal rever-
ence to those that were written ; and that the sense of
scripture was not that which seemed to men's reason
and understanding to be so, but that which the church
of Rome should declare to be so, seemed it never so
unreasonable and incongruous. The matter being once
thus ordered, and the holy scriptures being made in ef-
fect not your directors and judges, (no farther than you
please,) but your servants and instruments, always
pressed and in readiness to advance your designs, and
disabled wholly with minds so qualified to prejudice
or impeach them ; it is safe for you to put a crown on
their head, and a reed in their hands, and to bow before
them, and cry, Hail King of the Jews ! to pretend a
great deal of esteem and respect, and reverence to them,
as here you do. But to little purpose is verbal rever-
ence without entire submission and sincere obedience ;
and as our Saviour said of some, so the scripture, could
it speak, I believe would say to you, Why call ye me
Lord, Lord, and do not that which I command you f

ANSWER. whereby to judge Controversies. 159

Cast away the vain and arrogant pretence of infalli-
bility, which makes your errors incurable. Leave pic*
turing God, and worshipping him by pictures. Teach
not for doctrine the commandments of men. Debar not
the laity of the testament of Christ's blood. Let your
public prayers, and psalms and hymns, be in such
language as is for the edification of the assistants.
Take not from the clergy that liberty of marriage
which Christ hath left them. Do not impose upon
men that humility of worshipping angels which St.
Paul condemns. Teach no more proper sacrifices of
Christ but one. Acknowledge them that die in Christ
to be blessed, and to rest from their labours. Acknow-
ledge the sacrament, after consecration, to be bread and
wine, as well as Christ's body and blood. Acknow-
ledge the gift of continency, without marriage, not to
be given to all. Let not the weapons of your warfare
be carnal, such as are massacres, treasons, persecutions,
and, in a word, all means either violent or fraudulent :
these and other things, which the scripture commands
you, do, and then we shall willingly give you such
testimony as you deserve ; but till you do so, to talk
of estimation, respect, and reverence to the scripture,
is nothing else but talk.

2. For neither is that true which you pretend, *that
we possess the scripture from you, or take it upon the
integrity of your custody ;' but upon universal tradi-
tion, of which you are but a little part. Neither, if it
were true that protestants acknowledged the integrity
of it to have been guarded by your alone custody, were
this any argument of your reverence towards them.
For, first, you might preserve them entire, not for
want of will, but of power, to corrupt them, as it is a
hard thing to poison the sea. And then, having pre-
vailed so far with men, as either not to look at all into

160 Scripture the only Rule p. i. ch. ii.

them, or but only through such spectacles as you
should please to make for them, and to see nothing in
them, though as clear as the sun, if it any way made
against you ; you might keep them entire, without
any thought or care to conform your doctrine to them,
or reform it by them ; (which were indeed to reverence
the scriptures ;) but out of a persuasion that you
could qualify them well enough with your glosses and
interpretations, and make them sufficiently conform-
able to your present doctrine, at least in their judg-
ment who were prepossessed with this persuasion,
that " your church was to judge of the sense of scrip-
ture, not to be judged by it."

3. For whereas you say, " no cause imaginable
could avert your will, from giving the function of
supreme and sole judge to holy writ ; but that the
thing is impossible, and that by tbis means contro-
versies are increased, and not ended ;" you mean per-
haps, that you can or will imagine no other cause but
these. But sure there is little reason you should
measure other men's imaginations by your own, who
perhaps may be so clouded and veiled with prejudice,
that you cannot, or will not, see that which is most
manifest. For what indifferent and unprejudicate man
may not easily conceive another cause which (I do not
say does, but certainly) may pervert your wills, and
avert your understandings from submitting your re-
ligion and church to a trial by scripture ? I mean the
great and apparent and unavoidable danger which
by this means you would fall into, of losing the opinion
which men have of your infallibility, and consequently
your power and authority over men's consciences, and
all that depends upon it. So that though Diana of
the Ephesians be cried up, yet it may be feared that
with a great many among you (though I censure or

ANSWER. whereby to judge of Controversies. 161

judge no man), the other cause, which wrought upon
Demetrius and the craftsmen, may have with you also
the more effectual, though more secret, influence ; and
that is, that by this craft we have our living ; by this
craft, I mean, of keeping your proselytes from an
indifferent trial of your religion by scripture, and
making them yield up and captivate their judgment
unto yours. Yet had you only said de Jhcto, that no
other cause did avert your own will from this, but
only these which you pretend, out of charity I should
have believed you. But seeing you speak not of your-
self, but of all of your side, whose hearts you cannot
know, and profess not only that there is no other
cause, but that " no other is imaginable," I could not
let this pass without a censure. As for the impossi-
bility of scriptures being the sole judge of controver-
sies, that is, the sole rule for men to judge them by,
(for we mean nothing else,) you only affirm it without
proof, as if the thing were evident of itself ; and there-
fore I, conceiving the contrary to be more evident,
might well content myself to deny it without refuta-
tion ; yet I cannot but desire you to tell me, if scrip-
ture cannot be the judge of any controversy, how shall
that touching the church and the notes of it be de-
termined ? And if it be the sole judge of this one, why
may it not of others ? Why not of all ? Those only
excepted wherein the scripture itself is the subject of
the question, which cannot be determined but by na-
tural reason, the only principle, beside scripture, which
is common to Christians,

4. Then for the imputation of " increasing conten-
tions, and not ending them," scripture is innocent of
it ; as also this opinion, " that controversies are to be
decided by scripture." For if men did really and sin-
cerely submit their judgments to scripture, and that

CHILLINGWORTH, VOL. I. M

162 Scripture the only Rule p. i. ch. ii.

only, and would require no more of any man but to do
so, it were impossible but that all controversies touch-
ing things necessary and very profitable should be
ended ; and if others were continued or increased, it
were no matter.

5. In the next words we have direct boys' play, a
thing given with one hand, and taken away with the
other; an acknowledgment made in one line, and
retracted in the next. " We acknowledge," say you,
" scripture to be a perfect rule, for as much as a writing
can be a rule ; only we deny that it excludes unwritten
tradition." As if you should have said. We acknow-
ledge it to be as perfect a rule as writing can be ; only
we deny it to be as perfect a rule as a writing may be.
Either therefore you must revoke your acknowledg-
ment, or retract your retraction of it ; for both cannot
possibly stand together. For if you will stand to
what you have granted, that scripture is as perfect a
rule of faith as a writing can be ; you must then grant
it both so complete, that it needs no addition, and so
evident, that it needs no interpretation : for both these
properties are requisite to a perfect rule, and a writing
is capable of both these properties.

6. That both these properties are requisite to a per-
fect rule, it is apparent ; because that is not perfect in
any kind which wants some parts belonging to its
integrity ; as, he is not a perfect man that wants any
l^art appertaining to the integrity of a man ; and
therefore that which wants any accession to make it a
perfect rule, of itself is not a perfect rule. And then,
the end of a rule is to regulate and direct. Now every
instrument is more or less perfect in its kind, as it is
more or less fit to attain the end for which it is ordain-
ed : but nothing obscure or unevident, while it is so, is
fit to regulate and direct them to whom it is so : there-

ANSWER. lu hereby to judge of Controversies, 163

fore it is requisite also to a rule (so far as it is a rule)
to be evident ; otherwise indeed it is no rule, because
it cannot serve for direction. I conclude, therefore, that
both these properties are required to a perfect rule —
both to be so complete, as to need no addition ; and to
be so evident, as to need no interpretation.

7. Now that a writing is capable of both thevse per-
fections, it is so plain, that I am even ashamed to
prove it. For he that denies it must say, that some-
thing may be spoken which cannot be written. For if
such a complete and evident rule of faith may be de-
livered by word of mouth, as you pretend it may, and
is ; and whatsoever is delivered by word of mouth
may also be written ; then such a complete and evident
rule of faith may also be written. If you will have more
light added to the sun, answer me then to these ques-
tions : Whether your church can set down in writing
all these, which she pretends to be Divine unwritten
traditions, and add them to the verities already writ-
ten ? And whether she can set us down such inter-
pretations of all obscurities in the faith as shall need
no further interpretations? If she cannot, then she
hath not that power, which you pretend she hath, of
being an infallible teacher of all Divine verities, and an
infallible interpreter of obscurities in the faith : for
she cannot teach us all Divine verities, if she cannot
write them down ; neither is that an interpretation
which needs again to be interpreted. If she can, let
her do it, and then we shall have a writing, not only
capable of, but actually endowed with, both these per-
fections, of being both so complete as to need no ad-
dition, and so evident as to need no interpretation.
Lastly, whatsoever your church can do or not do, no
man can, without blasphemy, deny that Christ Jesus,
if he had pleased, could have writ us a rule of faith so

M 2

164 Scripture the only Rule p. i. ch. ii.

plain and perfect, as that it should have wanted neither
any part to make up its integrity, nor any clearness to
make it sufficiently intelligible. And if Christ could
have done this, then the thing might have been done ;
a writing there might have been, endowed with both
these properties. Thus therefore I conclude : a writ-
ing may be so perfect a rule, as to need neither ad-
dition nor interpretation : but " the scripture you ac-
knowledge a perfect rule, for as much as a writing can
be a rule ;" therefore it needs neither addition nor in-
terpretation.

8. You will say, that " though a writing be never
so perfect a rule of faith, yet it must be beholden to
tradition to give it this testimony, that it is a rule of
faith, and the word of God." I answer, first, there is
no absolute necessity of this ; for God might, if he
thought good, give it the attestation of perpetual
miracles. Secondly, that it is one thing to be a perfect
rule of faith, another, to be proved so unto us. And
thus though a writing could not be proved to us to be
a perfect rule of faith by its own saying so, for nothing
is proved true by being said or written in a book, but
only by tradition, which is a thing credible of itself; yet
it may be so in itself, and contain all the material ob-
jects, all the particular articles of our faith, without
any dependance upon tradition ; even this also not
excepted, that this writing doth contain the rule of
faith. Now when protestants affirm against papists,
that scripture is a perfect rule of faith, their meaning
is not, that by scripture all things absolutely may be
proved which are to be believed : for it can never be
proved by scripture to a gainsayer, that there is a
God, or that the book called scripture is the word of
God ; for he that will deny these assertions when they
are spoken, will believe them never a whit the more,

ANSWER. whereby to judge of Controversies. 165

because you can shew them written : but their mean-
ing is, that the scripture, to them which presuppose it
Divine, and a rule of faith, as papists and protestants
do, contains all the material objects of faith, is a com-
plete and total, and not only an imperfect and a partial
rule.

9. " But every book and chapter and text of scrip-
ture is infallible, and wants no due perfection, and yet
excludes not the addition of other books of scripture :
therefore the perfection of the whole scripture excludes
not the addition of unwritten tradition." I answer:
every text of scripture, though it hath the perfection
belonging to a text of scripture, yet it hath not the
perfection requisite to a perfect rule of faith ; and that
only is the perfection which is the subject of our dis-
course. So that this is to abuse your reader with
the ambiguity of the word perfect. In effect, as if you
should say, a text of scripture may be a perfect text,
though there be others beside it ; therefore the whole
scripture may be a perfect rule of faith, though there
be other parts of this rule besides the scripture, and
though the scripture be but a part of it.

10. The next argument to the same purpose is,
for sophistry, cousin-german to the former : " When
the first books of scripture were written, they did not
exclude unwritten traditions : therefore now also, that
all the books of scripture are written, traditions are
not excluded." The sense of which argument (if it have
any) must be this : when only a part of the scripture
was written, then a part of the Divine doctrine was
unwritten ; therefore now, when all the scripture is
written, yet some part of the Divine doctrine is yet
unwritten. If you say your conclusion is not, that it
is so, but without disparagement to scripture may be
so ; without disparagement to the truth of scripture, I

M 3

166 Scripture the only Rule p. i. ch. ii.

grant it ; but without disparagement to the scripture's
being a perfect rule, I deny it. And now the question
is not of the truth, but the perfection of it, which are
very different things, though you would fain confound
them. For scripture might very well be all true,
though it contain not all necessary Divine truth. But
unless it do so, it cannot be a perfect rule of faith : for
that which wants any thing is not perfect. For I
hope you do not imagine that we conceive any anti-
pathy between God's word written and unwritten, but
that both might very well stand together. All that we
say is this — that we have reason to believe that God,
de facto, hath ordered the matter so, that all the Gos-
pel of Christ, the whole covenant between God and
man, is now written. Whereas, if he had pleased, he
might so have disposed it, that part might have been
written, and part unwritten ; but then he would have
taken order, to whom we should have had recourse for
that part of it which was not written ; which seeing
he hath not done, (as the progress shall demonstrate,)
it is evident he hath left no part of it unwritten. We
know no man therefore that says it were any injury to
the written word to be joined with the unwritten, if
there were any wherewith it might be joined ; but
that we deny. The fidelity of a keeper may very well
consist with the authority of the thing committed to
his custody. But we know no one society of Christians
that is such a faithful keeper as you pretend. The
scripture itself was not kept so faithfully by you, but
that you suffered infinite variety of readings to creep
into it ; all which could not possibly be Divine ; and
yet, in several parts of your church, all of them, until
the last age, were so esteemed. The interpretations of
obscure places of scripture, which without question the
apostles taught the primitive Christians, are wholly

ANSWER. whereby to judge of Controversies. Id7

lost ; there remains no certainty scarce of any one.
Those worlds of miracles which our Saviour did, which
were not written, for want of writing are vanished out
of the memory of men : and many profitable things
which the apostles taught and writ not — as that which
St. Paul glanceth at in his Second Epistle to the
Thessalonians, of the cause of the hinderance of the
coming of Antichrist — are wholly lost and extinguish-
ed ; so unfaithful or negligent hath been this keeper
of Divine verities, whose eyes, like the Keeper's of
Israel, (you say,) have never slumbered nor slept.
Lastly, we deny not but a judge and a law might well
stand together, but we deny that there is any such
judge of God's appointment. Had he intended any
such judge he would have named him, lest otherwise
(as now it is) our judge of controversies should be our
greatest controversy.

11. Ad §. 2 — 6. In your second paragraph, you sum
up those arguments wherewith you intend to prove
that " scripture alone cannot be judge in controver-
sies :" wherein I profess unto you beforehand, that you
will fight without an adversary. For though protest-
ants, being warranted by some of the fathers, have
called scripture the judge of controversy, and you,
in saying here that " scripture alone cannot be judge,"
imply that it may be called in some sense a judge,
though not alone; yet to speak properly, (as men
should speak when they write of controversies in re-
ligion,) the scripture is not a judge of controversies,
but a rule only, and the only rule, for Christians to
judge them by. Every man is to judge for himself
with the judgment of discretion, and to choose either
his religion first, and then his church, as we say ; or,
as you, his church first, and then his religion. But,
by the consent of both sides, every man is to judge

M 4

168 Scripture the only Rule p. i. ch. ii.

and choose ; and the rule whereby he is to guide his
choice, if he be a natural man, is reason ; if he be al-
ready a Christian, scripture ; which we say is the rule
to judge controversies by. Yet not all simply, but all
the controversies of Christians, of those that are already
agreed upon this first principle, that the scripture is
the word of God. But that there is any man, or any
company of men, appointed to be judge for all men,
that we deny ; and that, I believe, you will never prove.
The very truth is, we say no more in this matter than
evidence of truth hath made you confess in plain terms
in the beginning of this chapter ; viz. " that scripture
is a perfect rule of faith, for as much as a writing can be
a rule." So that all your reasons, whereby you labour
to dethrone the scripture from this office of judging,
we might let pass as impertinent to the conclusion
which we maintain, and you have already granted ;
yet out of courtesy we will consider them.

12. Your first is this : "A judge must be a person
fit to end controversies ; but the scripture is not a per-
son, nor fit to end controversies, no more than the law
would be without the judges ; therefore, though it
may be a rule, it cannot be a judge." Which conclusion
I have already granted : only my request is, that you
will permit scripture to have the properties of a rule,
that is, to be fit to direct every one that will make the
best use of it, to that end for which it was ordained ;
and that is as much as we need desire. For as if I were
to go a journey, and had a guide which could not err,
I needed not to know my way ; so, on the other side,
if I know my way, or have a plain rule to know it by,
I shall need no guide. Grant therefore scripture to be
such a rule, and it will quickly take away all necessity
of having an infallible guide. But " without a living
judge it will be no fitter," you say, " to end controver-

ANSWER. IV hereby to judge of Controversies. 169

sies, than the law alone to end suits." I answer, if
the law were plain and perfect, and men honest and
desirous to understand aright, and obey it, he that says
it were not fit to end controversies, must either want
understanding himself, or think the world wants it.
Now the scripture, we pretend, in things necessary is
plain and perfect ; and men, we say, are obliged, under
pain of damnation, to seek the true sense of it, and not
to wrest it to their preconceived fancies. Such a law
therefore to such men cannot but be very fit to end all
controversies necessary to be ended. For others that
are not so, they will end when the world ends, and
that is time enough.

13. Your next encounter is with them who, acknow-
ledging the scripture a rule only, and not a judge,
make the Holy Ghost, speaking in scripture, the
judge of controversies. Which you disprove, by saying,
that the Holy Ghost, speaking only in scripture, is no
more intelligible to us than the scripture in which he
speaks. But by this reason neither the pope nor a
council can be a judge neither. For first, denying the
scriptures, the writings of the Holy Ghost, to be judges,
you will not, I hope, offer to pretend that their decrees^
the writings of men, are more capable of this function ;
the same exceptions, at least, if not more and greater,
lying against them as do against scripture. And then
what you object against the Holy Ghost speaking in
scripture, to exclude him from this office, the same I
return upon them and their decrees, to debar them
from it; that they speaking unto us only in their
decrees, are no more intelligible than the decrees in
which they speak. And, therefore, if the Holy Ghost,
speaking in scripture, may not be a judge for this rea-
son ; neither may they, speaking in their decrees, be
judges for the same reason. If the pope's decrees (you

170 Scripture the only Ride p. i. ch. ii.

will say) be obscure, he can explain himself; and so
the scripture cannot. But the Holy Ghost, that speaks
in scripture, can do so if he please ; and when he is
pleased will do so. In the mean time it will be fit
for you to wait his leisure, and to be content that
those things of scripture which are plain should be so,
and those which are obscure should remain obscure,
until he please to declare them. Besides, he can
(which you cannot warrant me of the pope or a council)
speak at first so plainly, that his words shall need no
further explanation ; and so in things necessary we
believe he hath done. And if you say, the decrees of
councils, touching controversies, though they be not
the judge, yet they are the judge's sentence ; so I say,
the scripture, though not the judge, is the sentence of
the judge. When therefore you conclude, that to say
a judge is necessary for deciding controversies about
the meaning of scripture, is as much as to say, he is
necessary to decide what the Holy Ghost speaks in
scripture ; this I grant is true ; but I may not grant
that a judge (such an one as we dispute of) is necessary,
either to do the one or the other. For if the scripture
(as it is in things necessary) be plain, why should it
be more necessary to have a judge to interpret it in
plain places, than to have a judge to interpret the
meaning of a council's decrees, and others to interpret
their interpretations, and others to interpret theirs, and
so on for ever ? And where they are not plain, there if
we, using diligence to find the truth, do yet miss of it
and fall into error, there is no danger in it. They
that err, and they that do not err, may both be saved.
So that those places, which contain things necessary,
and wherein error were dangerous, need no infal-
lible interpreter, because they are plain ; and those
that are obscure need none, because they contain

ANSWER. whereby to judge of Controversies. 171

not things necessary, neither is error in them dan-
gerous.

13. The law-maker speaking in the law, I grant it,
is no more easily understood than the law itself, for
his speech is nothing else but the law : I grant it very
necessary, that besides the law-maker speaking in the
law, there should be other judges, to determine civil
and criminal controversies, and to give every man that
justice which the law allows him. But your argument
drawn from hence, to shew a necessity of a visible
judge in controversies of religion, I say is sophistical ;
and that for many reasons.

1 4. First, Because the variety of civil cases is infinite,
and therefore there cannot be possibly laws enough
provided for the determination of them ; and therefore
there must be a judge to supply, out of the principles
of reason, the interpretation of the law, where it is
defective. But the scripture (we say) is a perfect rule of
faith, and therefore needs no supply of the defects of it.

15. Secondly, To execute the letter of the law,
according to rigour, would be many times unjust, and
therefore there is need of a judge to moderate it ; where-
of in religion there is no use at all.

16. Thirdly, In civil and criminal causes the parties
have for the most part so much interest, and very often
so little honesty, that they will not submit to a law,
though never so plain, if it be against them ; or will
not see it to be against them, though it be so never so
plainly : whereas if men were honest, and the law
were plain and extended to all cases, there would be
little need of judges. Now in matters of religion,
when the question is, whether every man be a fit judge
and chooser for himself, we suppose men honest, and
such as understand the difference between a moment
and eternity. And such men, we conceive, will think

172 Scripture the only Rule p. i. ch. ii.

it highly concerns them to be of the true religion, but
nothing at all that this or that religion should be the
true. And then we suppose that all the necessary-
points of religion are plain and easy, and consequently
every man in this cause to be a competent judge for
himself; because it concerns himself to judge right as
much as eternal happiness is worth. And if through
his own default he judge amiss, he alone shall suffer
for it.

17. Fourthly, In civil controversies we are obliged
only to external passive obedience, and not to an inter-
nal and active. We are bound to obey the sentence
of the judge, or not to resist it, but not always to
believe it just : but in matters of religion, such a judge
is required whom we should be obliged to believe to
have judged aright. So that in civil controversies
every honest understanding man is fit to be a judge ;
but in religion none but he that is infallible.

18. Fifthly, In civil causes there is means and power,
when the judge hath decreed, to compel men to obey
his sentence ; otherwise, I believe, laws alone would be
to as much purpose for the ending of differences, as
laws and judges both. But all the power in the world
is neither fit to convince nor able to compel a man's
conscience to consent to any thing. Worldly terror
may prevail so far as to make men profess a religion
which they believe not ; (such men, I mean, who know
not that there is a heaven provided for martyrs, and a
hell for those that dissemble such truths as are neces-
sary to be professed ;) but to force either any man to
believe what he believes not, or any honest man to
dissemble what he does believe, (if God commands him
to profess it,) or to profess what he does not believe,
all the powers in the world are too weak, with all the
powers of hell to assist them.

ANSWER. ivhereby to judge of Controversies. 173

19. Sixthly, In civil controversies the case cannot be
so put, but there may be a judge to end it, vi^ho is not
a party ; in controversies of religion, it is in a manner
impossible to be avoided, but the judge must be a
party. For this must be the first, w^hether he be a
judge or no, and in that he must be a party. Sure I
am, the pope, in the controversies of our time, is a chief
party ; for it highly concerns him, even as much as his
popedom is worth, not to yield any one point of his
religion to be erroneous. And he is a man subject to
like passions vv^ith other men. And therefore we may
justly decline his sentence, for fear temporal respects
should either blind his judgment, or make him pro-
nounce against it.

20. Seventhly, In civil controversies, it is impossible
Titius should hold the land in question and Sempronius
too ; and therefore either the plaintiff must injure the
defendant, by disquieting his possession, or the de-
fendant wrong the plaintiff by keeping his right from
him : but in controversies of religion the case is other-
wise. I may hold my opinion, and do you no wrong ;
and you yours, and do me none : nay, we may both of
us hold our opinion, and yet do ourselves no harm ;
provided the difference be not touching any thing ne-
cessary to salvation, and that we love truth so well, as
to be diligent to inform our conscience, and constant in
following it.

21. Eighthly, For the deciding of civil controversies,
men may appoint themselves a judge : but in matters
of religion, this office may be given to none but whom
God hath designed for it ; who doth not always give us
those things which we conceive most expedient for
ourselves.

22. Ninthly and lastly. For the ending of civil
controversies, who does not see it is absolutely neces-

174 Scrij^tnre the only Rule r. i. ch. ii.

saiy, that not only judges should be appointed, but
that it should be known and unquestioned who they
are ? Thus all the judges of our land are known men,
known to be judges, and no man can doubt or question
but these are the men. Otherwise, if it were a dis-
putable thing who were these judges, and they had
no certain warrant for their authority, but only some
topical congruities ; would not any man say, such
judges, in all likelihood, would rather multiply contro-
versies than end them ? ^ So likewise if our Saviour,
the King of heaven, had intended that all controver-
sies in religion should be by some visible judge finally
determined, who can doubt but in plain terms he
would have expressed himself about this matter? He
would have said plainly, " The bishop of Rome I have
appointed to decide all emergent controversies ;" for
that our Saviour designed the bishop of Rome to this
office, and yet would not say so, nor cause it to be
written, ad rei memoriam^ by any of the evangelists
or apostles so much as once ; but leave it to be drawn
out of uncertain principles, by thirteen or fourteen
more uncertain consequences — he that can believe it,
let him.

23. All these reasons, I hope, will convince you, that
though we have, and have great necessity of, judges in
civil and criminal causes ; yet you may not conclude
from thence, that there is any public authorized judge
to determine controversies in religion, nor any neces-
sity there should be any.

24. " But the scripture stands in need of some
watchful and unerring eye to guard it, by means of

a In the Oxford edition, 1638, what precedes of this paragraph is
made the 2Tst: there are also some further transpositions, para-
graphs 21, 22, 23, in which the second edition, printed in Londcm,
has been followed.

ANSWER. whereby to judge of Controversies. 175

whose assured vigilancy we may undoubtedly receive
it sincere and pure." Very true ; but this is no other
than the watchful eye of Divine Providence ; the good-
ness whereof will never suffer that the scripture should
be depraved and corrupted, but that in them should be
always extant a conspicuous and plain way to eternal
happiness. Neither can any thing be more palpably
unconsistent with his goodness, than to suffer scripture
to be undiscernibly corrupted in any matter of moment,
and yet to exact of men the belief of those verities,
which without their fault, or knowledge, or possibility
of prevention, were defaced out of them. So that God
requiring of men to believe scripture in its purity,
engages himself to see it preserved in sufficient purity ;
and you need not fear but he will satisfy his engage-
ment. You say, " we can have no assurance of this
but your church's vigilancy." But if we had no other,
we were in a hard case ; for who could then assure us
that your church hath been so vigilant as to guard
scripture from any the least alteration ? there being
various lections in the ancient copies of your Bibles.
What security can your new-raised office of assur-
ance give us, that the reading is true which you now
receive, and that false which you reject? Certainly,
they that anciently received and made use of these
divers copies, were not all guarded by the church's
vigilancy from having their scripture altered from the
purity of the original in many places. For of different
readings, it is not in nature impossible that all should
be false ; but more than one cannot possibly be true.
Yet the want of such a protection was no hinderance to
their salvation ; and why then shall the having of it be
necessary for ours ? But then, this vigilancy of your
church, what means have we to be ascertained of it ?
First, the thing is not evident of itself; which is evi-

176 Scripture the only Rule p. i. ch. ii.

dent, because many do not believe it : neither can any
thing be pretended to give evidence to it, but only
some places of scripture ; of vrhose in corruption more
than any other what is it that can secure me ? If you
say, the church's vigilancy, you are in a circle, proving
the scriptures uncorrupted by the church's vigilancy,
and the church's vigilancy by the incorruption of some
places of scripture; and again, the incorruption of
those places by the church's vigilancy. If you name
any other means, then that means vi^hich secures me of
the scriptures' incorruption in those places, will also
serve to assure me of the same in other places. For
my part, abstracting from Divine Providence, which
will never suffer the way to heaven to be blocked up,
or made invisible ; I know no other means (I mean no
other natural and rational means) to be assured hereof,
than I have that any other book is uncorrupted. For
though I have a greater degree of rational and human
assurance of that than this, in regard of divers con-
siderations, which make it more credible " that the
scripture hath been preserved from any material altera-
tion ;" yet my assurance of both is of the same kind
and condition; both moral assurances, and neither
physical nor mathematical.

25. To the next argument the reply is obvious :
that though we do not believe the books of scripture
to be canonical, because they say so, (for other books
that are not canonical may say they are, and those that
are so may say nothing of it ;) yet we believe not this
upon the authority of your church, but upon the credi-
bility of universal tradition, which is a thing credible
of itself, and therefore fit to be rested on ; whereas the
authority of your church is not so. And therefore
your rest thereon is not rational, but merely voluntary.
I might as well rest upon the judgment of the next

ANSWER. whereby to judge of Controversies. 177

man I meet, or upon the chance of a lottery for it.
For by this means I only know I might err, but by
relying on you, I know I should err. But yet, (to re-
turn you one suppose for another,) suppose I should
for this and all other things submit to her direction,
how could she assure me that I should not be misled
by doing so ? She pretends indeed infallibility herein ;
but how can she assure us that she hath it ? What, by
scripture ? That, you say, cannot assure us of its own
infallibility, and therefore not of yours. What then,
by reason ? That, you say, may deceive in other things,
and why not in this ? How then will she assure us
hereof ? By saying so ? Of this very affirmation there
will remain the same question still — how can it prove
itself to be infallibly true ? Neither can there be an
end of the like multiplied demands, till we rest in
something, evident of itself, which demonstrates to the
world that this church is infallible. And seeing there
is no such rock for the infallibility of this church to
be settled on, it must of necessity, like the island of
Delos, float up and down for ever. And yet upon this
point, according to papists, all other controversies in
faith depend.

26. To §. 7 — 14. The sum and substance of the
ten next paragraphs is this : That it appears by the
confessions of some protestants, and the contentions
of others, that the questions about the canon of scrip-
ture, what it is ; and about the various readings and
translations of it, which is true, and which not ; are
not to be determined by scripture, and therefore that
all controversies of religion are not decidable by scrip-
ture.

27. To which I have already answered, saying, that
when scripture is affirmed to be the rule by which all
controversies of religion are to be decided, those are

CHILLINGWORTH, VOL. I. N

178 Scripture the only Rule p. i. ch. ii.

to be excepted out of this generality which are con-
cerning the scripture itself : for as that general saying
of scripture, he hath put all things under his foet, is
most true ; though yet St. Paul tells us, that when it
is said, he hath put all things under him, it is mani-
Jest he is excepted who did put all things under him :
so when we say, that all controversies of religion are
decidable by the scripture, it is manifest to all, but
cavillers, that we do and must except from this gene-
rality those which are touching the scripture itself.
Just as a merchant shewing a ship of his own may
say, ' All my substance is in this ship,' and yet never
intend to deny that his ship is part of his substance,
nor yet to say that his ship is in itself. Or as a man
may say, that a whole house is supported by the
foundation, and yet never mean to exclude the founda-
tion from being a part of the house, or to say, that it
is supported by itself. Or, as you yourselves use to
say, that the bishop of Rome is the head of the whole
church, and yet would think us but captious sophisters
should we infer from hence, that either you made him
no part of the whole, or else made him head of him-
self. Your negative conclusion, therefore, that these
" questions touching scripture are not decidable by
scripture," you needed not have cited any authorities
nor urged any reason to prove it ; it is evident of
itself, and I grant it without more ado. But your
corollary from it, which you would insinuate to your
unwary reader, " that therefore they are to be decided
by your, or any visible church," is a mere inconse-
quence, and \ery like his collection, who because Pam-
philus was not to have Glycerium for his wife, pre-
sently concluded that he must have her ; as if there
had been no more men in the world but Pamphilus
and himself. For so you, as if there were nothing in

ANSWER. whereby to jitdge of Cmitroversies. 179

the world capable of this office, but the scripture or
the present church ; having concluded against scrip-
ture, you conceive, but too hastily, that you have con-
cluded for the church. But the truth is, neither the
one nor the other have any thing to do with this mat-
ter. For, first ; the question, " whether such or such a
book be canonical scripture," though it may be decided
negatively out of scripture, by shewing apparent and
irreconcilable contradictions between it and some
other book confessedly canonical ; yet affirmatively it
cannot, but only by the testimonies of the ancient
churches ; any book being to be received as undoubt-
edly canonical, or to be doubted of as uncertain, or
rejected as apocryphal, according as it was received, or
doubted of, or rejected by them. Then for the ques-
tion, " Of various readings, which is the true ? " it is
in reason evident, and confessed by your own pope,
that there is no possible determination of it, but only
by comparison with ancient copies. And, lastly, for
controversies about different translations of scripture,
the learned have the same means to satisfy themselves
in it, as in the questions which happen about the
translation of any other author ; that is, skill in the
language of the original, and comparing translations
with it. In which way, if there be no certainty, I
would know what certainty you have, that your Doway
Old, and Rhemish New Testament, are true transla-
tions ? And then for the unlearned, those on your side
are subject to as much, nay, the very same uncertainty
with those on ours. Neither is there any reason ima-
ginable, why an ignorant English protestant may not
be as secure of the translation of our church, that it is
free from error, if not absolutely, yet in matters of
moment, as an ignorant English papist can be of his
Rhemish Testament or Doway Bible. The best di-

N 2

180 Scripture the only Rule p. i. ch. n.

rection I can give them is to compare both together,
and where there is no real difference, (as in the trans-
lation of controverted places I believe there is very-
little,) there to be confident that they are right ; where
they differ, there to be prudent in the choice of the
guides they follow. Which way of proceeding, if it
be subject to some possible error, yet it is the best that
either we or you have ; and it is not required that we
use any better than the best we have.

2!8. You will say, "dependance on your church's
infallibility is a better." I answer, it would be so, if we
could be infallibly certain that your church is infalli-
ble ; that is, if it were either evident of itself, and seen
by its own light, or could be reduced unto and settled
upon some principle that is so. But seeing you your-
selves do not so much as pretend to enforce us to the
belief hereof by any proofs infallible and convincing,
but only to induce us to it by such as are, by your
confession, only probable and prudential motives ; cer-
tainly it will be to very little purpose to put off your
uncertainty for the first turn, and to fall upon it at the
second ; to please yourselves in building your house
upon an imaginary rock, when you yourselves see and
confess that this very rock stands itself at the best but
upon a frame of timber. I answer, secondly, that this
cannot be a better way, because we are infallibly certain
that your church is not infallible, and indeed hath not
the real prescription of this privilege, but only pleaseth
herself with a false imagination and vain presumption
of it ; as I shall hereafter demonstrate by many unan-
swerable arguments.

29. Now seeing I make no scruple or difficulty to
grant the conclusion of this discourse, that " these con-
troversies about scripture are not decidable by scrip-
ture;" and have shewed that your deduction from

ANSWER. wh erehy to judge of Controversies. 1 81

it, that " therefore they are to be determined by the
authority of some present church," is irrational and
inconsequent ; I might well forbear to tire myself with
an exact and punctual examination of your premises
KaTCL TToSa, which whether they be true or false is to
the question disputed wholly impertinent ; yet, because
you shall not complain of tergiversation, I will run
over them, and let nothing that is material and consider-
able pass without some strictui^e or animadversion.

30. You pretend that M. Hooker acknowledgeth,
that " that whereon we must rest our assurance that
the scripture is God's word, is the church," and for this
acknowledgment you refer us to 1. iii. ^. 8^. Let the
reader consult the place, and he shall find that he and
M. Hooker have been much abused, both by you here,
and by M. Brerely and others before you ; and that
M. Hooker hath not one syllable to your pretended
purpose, but very much directly to the contrary. There
he tells us, indeed, " that ordinarily the first introduc-
tion and probable motive to the belief of the verity is
the authority of the church ;" but that it is the last
foundation whereon our belief hereof is rationally
grounded, that, in the same place, he plainly denies.
His words are ; " Scripture teacheth us that saving
truth which God hath discovered unto the world by
revelation, and it presumeth us taught otherwise that
itself is Divine and sacred. The question then being
by what means we are taught this ; ^ some answer, that
to learn it we have no other way than only tradition ;
as namely, that so we believe, because both we from our
predecessors, and they from theirs, have so received.
But is this enough ? That which all men's experience

a Ecclesiastical Polity, book 3. ch. 8. sect. 13, 14. vol. i. p. 474.
Oxf. edit. 1836.

^ Some answer so, but he doth not.

N 3

182 Scripture the only Rule p. i. ch. ii.

teacheth them may not in any wise be denied. And by
experience we all know, ^'that the first outward motive
leading men so to esteem of the scripture is the authority
of God's church. For when we know ^the whole church
of God hath that opinion of the scripture, we judge it
even at the first an impudent thing for any man bred
and brought up in the church to be of a contrary mind
without cause. Afterwards, the more we bestow our
labour in reading or hearing the mysteries thereof %
the more we find that the thing itself doth answer our
received opinion concerning it; so that the former
inducement prevailing somewhat^ with us before, doth
now much more prevail, when the very thing hath
ministered further reason. If infidels or atheists chance
at any time to call it in question, this giveth us occa-
sion to sift what reason there is, whereby the testi-
mony of the church concerning scripture, and our own
persuasion which scripture itself hath confirmed, may be
proved a truth infallible. ^ In which case the ancient
fathers being often constrained to shew what warraiit

c The first outward motive, not the last assurance whereon we
rest.

d The whole church, that he speaks of, seems to be that particu-
lar church wherein a man is bred and brought up ; and the author-
ity of this he makes an argument which presseth a man's modesty-
more than his reason. And in saying, ^' it seems impudent to be
of a contrary mind without cause," he implies^ there may be a just
cause to be of a contrary mind, and that then it were no impudence
to be so.

e Therefore the authority of the church is not the pause where-
on we rest ; we had need of more assurance, and the intrinsical
arguments afford it.

f Somewhat, but not much, until it be backed and enforced by
further reason ; itself, therefore, is not the furthest reason, and the
last resolution.

g Observe, I pray, our persuasion, and the testimony of the
church concerning scripture, may be proved true \ therefore neither
of them was in his account the furthest proof.

ANswEE. whereby to judge of Controversies. 183

they had so much to rely upon the scriptures, endea-
voured still to maintain the authority of the books of
God by arguments such as unbelievers themselves must
needs think reasonable, if they judged thereof as they
should. Neither is it a thing impossible, or greatly
hard, even by such kind of proofs so to manifest and
clear that point, that no man living shall be able to
deny it, without denying some apparent principle, such
as all men acknowledge to be true." ^ By this time I
hope the reader sees sufficient proof of what I said in
my reply to your preface, that Mr. Brerely's great
ostentation of exactness is no very certain argument of
his fidelity.

31. But, "seeing the belief of the scripture is a
necessary thing, and cannot be proved by scripture,
how can the church of England teach, as she doth,
Art. VI. that all things necessary are contained in
scripture?"

32. I have answered this already. And here again
I say, that all but cavillers will easily understand the
meaning of the Article to be, that all the Divine veri-
ties, which Christ revealed to his apostles, and the apo-
stles taught the churches, are contained in scripture ;
that is, all the material objects of our faith, whereof
the scripture is none, but only the means of conveying
them unto us ; which we believe not finally and for
itself, but for the matter contained in it. So that if
men did believe the doctrine contained in scripture, it
should no way hinder their salvation, not to know
whether there were any scripture or no. Those bar-
barous nations Irenaeus speaks of were in this case,
and yet no doubt but they might be saved. The end

^ Natural reason, then, built on principles common to all men,
is the last resolution, unto which the church's authority is but the
first inducement.

N 4

184 Scriptitre the only Rule p. i. ch. ii.

that God aims at is the belief of the Gospel, the cove-
nant between God and man; the scripture he hath
provided as a means for this end, and this also we are
to believe, but not as the last object of our faith, but
as the instrument of it. When therefore we subscribe
to the sixth Article, you must understand, that by
" articles of faith" they mean the final and ultimate
objects of it, and not the means and instrumental ob-
jects ; and then there will be no repugnance between
what they say, and that which Hooker, and D. Covel,
and D. Whi taker, and Luther here say.

33. But, "protestants agree not in assigning the
canon of holy scripture ; Luther and Illyricus reject
the Epistle of St. James ; Chemnitius, and other Lu-
therans, the Second of Peter, the Second and Third of
John, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistle of
James, of Jude, and the Apocalypse. Therefore, with-
out the authority of the church, no certainty can be
had what scripture is canonical."

34. So also the ancient fathers, and not only fathers,
but whole churches, differed about the certainty of the
authority of the very same books ; and by their differ-
ence shewed they knew no necessity of conforming
themselves herein to the judgment of your or any
church : for had they done so, they must have agreed
all with that church, and consequently among them-
selves. Now, I pray, tell me plainly, had they suf-
ficient certainty what scripture was canonical, or had
they not ? If they had not, it seems there is no great
harm or danger in not having such a certainty, whether
some books be canonical or not, as you require ; if
they had, why may not protestants, notwithstanding
their differences, have sufficient certainty hereof, as
well as the ancient fathers and churches, notwith-
standing theirs ?

ANswEE. ivherehy to judge of Controversies, 185

35. You proceed: "and whereas the protestants of
England in the sixth Article have these words ; ' In the
name of the holy scripture we do understand those
books, of whose authority was never any doubt in the
church ;' " you demand, " what they mean by them ?
Whether that by the church's consent they are as-
sured what scriptures be canonical?" I answer for
them, Yes, they are so. And whereas you infer from
hence, " This is to make the church judge ;" I have told
you already, that of this controversy we make the
church the judge ; but not the present church, much
less the present Roman church, but the consent and
testimony of the ancient and primitive church, which
though it be but an highly probable inducement, and no
demonstrative enforcement; yet methinks you should
not deny but it may be a sufficient ground of faith ;
whose faith, even of the foundation of all your faith,
your church's authority, is built lastly and wholly upon
" prudential motives."

36. But " by this rule the whole Book of Esther
must quit the canon, because it was excluded by some
in the church ; by Melito, Athanasius, and Gregory
Nazianzen." Then, for aught I know, he that should
think he had reason to exclude it now, might be still
in the church, as well as Melito, Athanasius, Nazian-
zen were. And while you thus inveigh against Lu-
ther, and cliarge him with Luciferian heresy, for doing
that which you in this very place confess that saints
in heaven before him have done, are you not partial^
and a judge of evil thoughts ?

37. Luther's censures of Ecclesiastes, Job, and the
Prophets, though you make such tragedies with them,
I see none of them but is capable of a tolerable con-
struction, and far from having in them any funda-
mental heresy. He that condemns him for saying.

186 Scripture the only Rule p. i. ch. ii.

" the Book of Ecclesiastes is not full, that it hath
many abrupt things," condemns him, for aught I can
see, for speaking truth. And the rest of the censure
is but a bold and blunt expression of the same thing.
The Book of Job may be a true history, and yet, as
many true stories are and have been, an argument of
a fable, to set before us an example of patience. And
though the books of the Prophets were not written by
themselves, but by their disciples, yet it does not fol-
low that they were written casually, (though I hope
you will not damn all for heretics that say some books
of scripture were written casually.) Neither is there
any reason they should the sooner be called in question
for being written by their disciples, seeing being so
written they had attestation from themselves. Was
the Prophecy of Jeremy the less canonical for being
written by Baruch ? Or, because St. Peter, the master,
dictated the Gospel, and St. Mark, the scholar, writ
it, is it the more likely to be called in question ?

38. But, leaving Luther, you return to our English
canon of scripture ; and tell us, that " in the New
Testament, by the abovementioned rule, (of whose au-
thority was never any doubt in the church,) divers
books must be discanonized." Not so ; for I may be-
lieve even those questioned books to have been written
by the apostles, and to be canonical ; but I cannot in
reason believe this of them so undoubtedly, as of those
books which were never questioned : at least, I have
no warrant to damn any man that shall doubt of them
or deny them now, having the example of saints in
heaven, either to justify or excuse such their doubting
or denial.

39. You observe, in the next place, that " our sixth
Article, specifying by name all the books of the Old
Testament, shuffles over those of the New with this

ANSWER. whereby to judge of Controversies, 187

generality: *A11 the books of the New Testament,
as they are commonly received, we do receive, and ac-
count them canonical :'" and in this you fancy to
yourself a mystery of iniquity. But if this be all
the shuffling that the church of England is guilty of,
I believe the church, as well as the king, may give for
her motto, Honi soit qui mal y pense : for all the
Bibles, which since the composing of the Articles have
been used and allowed by the church of England, do
testify and even proclaim to the world, that by " com-
monly received," they meant received by the church of
Rome and other churches befare the reformation. I
pray take the pains to look in them, and there you shall
find the books which the church of England counts
apocryphal marked out, and severed from the rest,
with this title in the beginning — -" The Books called
Apocrypha ;" and with this close or seal in the end —
" The End of the Apocrypha." And having told you by
name, and in particular, what books only she esteems
apocryphal, I hope you will not put her to the trouble
of telling you, that the rest are in her judgment ca-
nonical.

40. " But if by ' commonly received,' she meant by
the church of Rome ; then by the same reason must
she receive divers books of the Old Testament which
she rejects."

41. Certainly a very good consequence. The church
of England receives the books of the New Testament
which the church of Rome receives : therefore she
must receive the books of the Old Testament which
she receives. As if you should say, If you will do as
we in one thing, you must in all things. If you will
pray to God with us, ye must pray to saints with us.
If you hold with us, when we have reason on our side,
you must do so when we have no reason.

188 Scripture the only Rule p. i. ch. ii.

42. The discourse following is but a vain declamation.
No man thinks that this controversy is to be tried by-
most voices, but by the judgment and testimony of the
ancient fathers and churches.

43. But " with what coherence can we say in the
former part of the Article, that by * scripture we mean
those books that were never doubted of;' and in the
latter say, ' we receive all the books of the New Tes-
tament, as they are commonly received,' whereas of
them many were doubted ?" I answer ; when they say,
" of whose authority there was never any doubt in the
church," they mean not those only, of whose authority
there was simply no doubt at all, by any man in the
church ; but such as were not at any time doubted of
by the whole church, or by all churches ; but had
attestation, though not universal, yet at least sufficient
to make considering men receive them for canonical.
In which number they may well reckon those epistles
which were sometimes doubted of by some, yet whose
number and authority was not so great as to prevail
against the contrary suffrages.

44. But "if to be 'commonly received' passed for
a good rule to know the canon of the New Testament
by, why not of the Old ?" You conclude many times
very well ; but still when you do so, it is out of prin-
ciples which no man grants : for who ever told you,
that to be " commonly received" is a good rule to know
the canon of the New Testament by ? Have you been
trained up in schools of subtilty, and cannot you
see a great difference between these two — We receive
the books of the New Testament as they are commonly
received, and we receive those that are commonly
received, because they are so ? To say this, were
indeed to make " being commonly received," a rule or
reason to know the canon by. But to say the former,

ANSwEii. whereby to judge of Controversies. 189

doth no more make it a rule, than you should make the
church of England the rule of your receiving them, if
you should say, as you may, The books of the New
Testament we receive for canonical, as they are received
by the church of England.

45. You demand, " upon what infallible ground we
agree with Luther against you in some, and with you
against Luther in others ?" And I also demand, upon
what infallible ground you hold your canon, and agree
neither with us nor Luther ? For sure your differing
from us both, is of itself no more apparently reasonable,
than our agreeing with you in part, and in part with
Luther. If you say, your church's infallibility is your
ground ; I demand again some infallible ground, both
for the church's infallibility, and for this, that "yours is
the church ;" and shall never cease multiplying demands
upon demands, until you settle me upon a rock : I
mean, give such an answer, whose truth is so evident,
that it needs no further evidence. If you say, " This is
universal tradition ;" I reply. Your church's infallibility
is not built upon it, and that the canon of scripture, as
we receive it, is : for we do not profess ourselves so
absolutely and undoubtedly certain ; neither do we
urge others to be so, of those books, which have been
doubted, as of those that never have.

46. The conclusion of your tenth section is, that "the
divinity of a writing cannot be known from itself
alone, but by some extrinsical authority :" which you
need not prove ; for no wise man denies it. But then,
this authority is that of universal tradition, not of your
church. For to me it is altogether as auroVio-Toi/, that
the Gospel of St. Matthew is the word of God, as that
all which your church says is true.

47. That believers of the scripture, by considering
the Divine matter, the excellent precepts, the glorious

190 Scripture the only Rule p. i. ch. n.

promises contained in it, may be confirmed in their
faith of the scripture's Divine authority ; and that
among other inducements and enforcements hereunto,
internal arguments have their place and force, certainly
no man of understanding can deny. For my part, I
profess, if the doctrine of the scripture were not as
good, and as fit to come from the Fountain of goodness,
as the miracles by vrhich it vras confirmed were great,
I should vrant one main pillar of my faith ; and for
want of it, I fear, should be much staggered in it.
Novr this, and nothing else, did the Doctor mean in
saying, " The believer sees, by that glorious beam of
Divine light which shines in scripture, and by many
internal arguments, that the scripture is of Divine
authority." "By this," saith he, "he sees it;" that is, he
is moved to, and strengthened in his belief of it ; and
by this partly, not wholly ; by this, not alone, but with
the concurrence of other arguments. He that will
quarrel with him for saying so, must find fault with
the Master of the Sentences, and all his scholars ; for
they all say the same. The rest of this paragraph I
am as willing it should be true as you are to have it ;
and so let it pass as a discourse wherein we are wholly
unconcerned. You might have met with an answerer
that would not have suffered you to have said so much
truth together ; but to me it is sufficient that it is
nothing to the purpose.

48. In the next division, out of your liberality, you
will suppose that scripture, like to a corporal light, is
by itself alone able to determine and move our under-
standing to assent ; yet notwithstanding this supposal,
" faith still," you say, " must go before scripture ;
because, as the light is visible only to those that have
eyes, so the scripture only to those that have the eye
of faith." But to my understanding, if scripture do

ANSWER. whereby to judge of Controversies. 191

move and determine our understanding to assent ;
then the scripture, and its moving, must be before this
assent, as the cause must be before its own effect ; now
this very assent is nothing else but faith, and faith
nothing else than the understanding's assent. And
therefore (upon this supposal) faith doth and must
originally proceed from scripture, as the effect from its
proper cause, and the influence and eflficacy of scripture
is to be presupposed before the assent of faith, unto
which it moves and determines ; and consequently, if
this supposition of yours were true, there should need
no other means precedent to scripture to beget faith ;
scripture itself being able (as here you suppose) to
determine and move the understanding to assent, that
is, to believe them, and the verities contained in them.
Neither is this to say, that the eyes with which we see
are made by the light by which we see. For you are
mistaken much, if you conceive that in this comparison
faith answers to the eye. But if you will not pervert
it, the analogy must stand thus : scripture must answer
to light ; the eye of the soul, that is, the understanding,
or the faculty of assenting, to the bodily eye ; and,
lastly, assenting or believing, to the act of seeing. As
therefore the light, determining the eye to see, though
it presupposeth the eye which it determines, as every
action doth the object on which it is employed, yet
itself is presupposed and antecedent to the act of seeing,
as the cause is always to its effect : so, if you will sup-
pose that scripture, like light, moves the understanding
to assent, the understanding (that is, the eye and object
on which it works) must be before this influence upon
it ; but the assent, that is, the belief whereto the scrip-
ture moves, and the understanding is moved, which
answers to the act of seeing, must come after : for if
it did assent already, to what pui'pose should the scrip-

192 Scripture the only Rule p. i. ch. ii.

ture do that which was done before ? Nay, indeed,
how were it possible it should be so, any more than a
father can beget a son that he hath already? or an
architect build a house that is built already ? or that
this very world can be made again before it be unmade?
Transubstantiation indeed is fruitful of such monsters :
but they that have not sworn themselves to the defence
of error will easily perceive, that jam factum facer e,
and factum infect um facer e, are equally impossible.
But I digress.

49. The close of this paragraph is a fit cover for such a
dish : there you tell us, that *'if there must be some other
means precedent to scripture to beget faith, this can be
no other than the church." By "the church," we know
you do and must understand the Roman church : so
that in effect you say, no man can have faith, but he
must be moved to it by your church's authority : and
that is to say, that the king and all other protestants, to
whom you write, though they verily think they are
Christians, and believe the gospel, because they assent
to the truth of it, and would willingly die for it, yet
indeed are infidels, and believe nothing. The scripture
tells us. The heart of' man knoweth no man, hut the
spirit of man which is in him. And who are you, to
take upon you to make us believe that we do not believe
what we know we do ? But if I may think verily that
I believe the scripture, and yet not believe it ; how
know you that you believe the Roman church ? I am
as verily and as strongly persuaded that I believe the
scripture, as you are that you believe the church ; and
if I may be deceived, why may not you ? Again ; what
more ridiculous, and against sense and experience, than
to affirm, that there are not millions amongst you and
us that believe upon no other reason than their educa-
tion, and the authority of their parents and teachers,

ANSWER. whereby to judge of Controversies. 19S

and the opinion they have of them ? the tenderness of
the subject, and aptness to receive impressions, supply-
ing the defect and imperfection of the agent. And
will you proscribe from heaven all those believers of
your own creed, who do indeed lay the foundation of
their faith (for I cannot call it by any other name) no
deeper than upon the authority of their father or mas-
ter or parish-priest? Certainly, if they have no true faith,
your church is very full of infidels. Suppose Xaverius
by the holiness of his life had converted some Indians
to Christianity, who could (for so I will suppose) have
no knowledge of your church but from him, and there-
fore must last of all build their faith of the church upon
their opinion of Xaverius : do these remain as very
pagans after conversion as they were before ? Are they
brought to assent in their souls, and obey in their lives
the Gospel of Christ, only to be tantalized and not
saved, and not benefited, but deluded by it, because,
forsooth, it is a man, and not the church, that begets
faith in them ? What if their motive to believe be not
in reason sufficient ? Do they therefore not believe what
they do believe, because they do it upon insufficient
motives : they choose the faith imprudently perhaps, but
yet they choose it. Unless you will have us believe,
that that which is done is not done, because it is not
done upon good reason ; which is to say, that never
any man living ever did a foolish action. But yet I
know not why the authority of one holy man, which
apparently hath no ends upon me, joined with the good-
ness of the Christian faith, might not be a far greater
and more rational motive to me to embrace Christianity,
than any I can have to continue in paganism. And
therefore for shame, if not for love of truth, you must
recant the fancy when you write again, and suffer true
faith to be many times where your church's infallibility

CHILLINGWORTH, VOL. I« O

194 Scripture the 07ily Ride p. i. ch. ii.

hath no hand in the beginning of it ; and be content to
tell us hereafter, that we believe not enough ; and not
go about to persuade us we believe nothing, for fear,
with telling us what we know to be manifestly false,
you should gain only this, " not to be believed when
you speak truth." Some pretty sophisms you may haply
bring us, to make us believe we believe nothing ; but
wise men know, that reason against experience is al-
ways sophistical. And therefore, as he that could not
answer Zeno's subtilties against the existence of motion,
could yet confute them, by doing that which he pre-
tended could not be done : so if you should give me a
hundred arguments to persuade me, because I do not
believe transubstantiation I do not believe in God, and
the knots of them I could not untie, yet I should cut
them in pieces with doing that, and knowing that I
do so, which you pretend I cannot do.

50. In the thirteenth division we have again much
ado about nothing ; a great deal of stir you keep in
confuting some, " that pretend to know canonical scrip-
ture to be such by the titles of the books." But these
men you do not name ; which makes me suspect you
cannot : yet it is possible there may be some such men
in the world ; for Gusman de Alferache hath taught
us, that the fools' hospital is a large place.

51. In the fourteenth §. we have very artificial jug-
gling. D. Potter had said, " That the scripture" [he
desires to be understood of those books wherein all
Christians agree] " is a principle, and needs not to be
proved among Christians." His reason was, because
*' that needs no further proof which is believed already."
Now by this (you say) he means either, that the scrip-
ture is one of these first principles, and most known in
all sciences, which cannot be proved ; which is to sup-
pose it cannot be proved by the church ; and that is

ANSWER. whet'eby to judge of Controversies. 195

to suppose the question ; or he means, that it is not the
most known in Christianity, and then it may be proved.
Where we see plainly, that two most different things,
" most known in all sciences," and " most known in
Christianity," are captiously confounded. As if the scrip-
ture might not be the first and most known principle in
Christianity, and yet not the most known in all sciences ;
or, as if to be a first principle " in Christianity," and "in
all sciences," were all one. That scripture is a principle
among Christians, that is, so received by all that it
need not be proved in any emergent controversy to any
Christian, but may be taken for granted, I think few
will deny : you yourselves are of this a sufficient testi-
mony ; for urging against us many texts of scripture,
you offer no proof of the truth of them, presuming we
will not question it. Yet this is not to deny that tradi-
tion is a principle more known than scripture ; but to
say, it is a principle not in Christianity, but in rea-
son, not proper to Christians, but common to all
men.

52. But, " it is repugnant to our practice to hold
scripture a principle, because we are wont to affirm,
that one part of scripture may be known to be canoni-
cal, and may be interpreted by another." Where the
former device is again put in practice. For to be known
to be "canonical," and to be "interpreted," is not all one.
That scripture may be interpreted by scripture, that
protestants grant, and papists do not deny; neither
does that any way hinder, but that this assertion,
" Scripture is the word of God, may be among Christ-
ians a common principle." But the first, " that one part
of scripture may prove another part canonical, and need
no proof of its own being so ;" for that you have pro-
duced divers protestants that deny it ; but who they
are that affirm it, nondum constat.

o 2

196 Scripture the only Rule p. i. ch. ii.

53. It is superfluous for you to prove out of St. Atha-
nasius and St. Austin, that *' we must receive the sacred
canon upon the credit of God's church :" understanding
by church, as here you explain yourself, the credit of
tradition. And that not the tradition of the present
church, which we pretend may deviate from the ancient,
but " such a tradition, which involves an evidence of
fact, and from hand to hand, from age to age, bringing
us up to the times and persons of the apostles, and our
Saviour himself, cometh to be confirmed by all these
miracles and other arguments, whereby they convinced
their doctrine to be true." Thus you. Now prove the
canon of scripture which you receive by such tradition,
and we will allow it : prove your whole doctrine, or the
infallibility of your church, by such tradition, and we
will yield to you in all things. Take the alleged
places of St. Athanasius and St. Austin in this sense,
(which is your own,) and they will not press us any
thing at all. We will say, with Athanasius, "that
only four Gospels are to be received, because the canons
of the holy and catholic church" [understand of all ages
since the perfection of the canon] " have so determined."

54. We will subscribe to St. Austin, and say,
that " we also would not believe the gospel, unless the
authority of the catholic church did move us," (meaning
by the church, the church of all ages, and that succes-
sion of Christians which takes in Christ himself
and his apostles.) Neither would Zuinglius have needed
to cry out upon this saying, had he conceived as you now
do, that by the catholic church, the church of all ages,
since Christ, was to be understood. As for the council
of Carthage, it may speak not of such books only as were
certainly canonical, and for the regulating of faith, but
also of those which were only profitable, and lawful to
be read in the church : which in England is a very

ANSWER. whereby to judge of Controversies. 197

slender argument that the book is canonical, where
every body knows that apocryphal books are read as
well as canonical. But howsoever, if you understand
by fathers, not only their immediate fathers and prede-
cessors in the gospel, but the succession of them from
the apostles, they are right in the thesis, that " whatso-
ever is received from these fathers, as canonical, is to
be so esteemed ;" though in the application of it to
this or that particular book they may haply err, and
think that book received as canonical which was only
received as profitable to be read ; and think that book
received alway, and by all, which was rejected by some,
and doubted of by many.

55, But we cannot be " certain in what language the
scriptures remain uncorrupted." Not so certain, I grant,
as of that which we can demonstrate ; but certain
enough, morally certain, as certain as the nature of the
thing will bear : so certain we may be, and God re-
quires no more. We may be as certain as St. Austin
was, who, in his second book of Baptism, against the
Donatists, c. 3, plainly implies, " the scripture might
possibly be corrupted." He means sure in matters of
little moment, such as concern not the covenant be-
tween God and man. But thus he saith ; the same St.
Austin, in his forty-eighth Epistle, clearly intimates,
™that ** in his judgment, the only preservative of the

*» Neque enim sic potuit integritas atque notitia literarum quam-
libet illustris Episcopi custodiri, quemadmodum scriptura canonica
tot linguarum Uteris et ordine et successione celebrationis ecclesi-
asticae custoditur ; contra quam non defuerunt tamen, qui sub no-
minibus apostolorum multa confingerent. Frustra quidem ; quia
ilia sic commendata, sic celebrata, sic nota est. Verum quid possit
adversus literas non canonica authoritate fundatas etiam hinc de-
monstrabit impiae conatus audaciae, quod et adversus eos quae tanta
notitiae mole firmatae sunt, sese erigere non praetermisit. — Aug. ep.
48. ad Vincent, cont. Donat. et Rogat.

o3

198 Scripture the only Rule p. i. ch. ii.

scripture's integrity was the translating it into so many
languages, and the general and perpetual use and read-
ing of it in the church ; for want whereof the works of
particular doctors were more exposed to danger in this
kind ;" but the canonical scripture being by this means
guarded with universal care and diligence, was not ob-
noxious to such attempts. And this assurance of the
scripture's incorruption is common to us with him ;
we therefore are as certain hereof as St. Austin was,
and that, I hope, was certain enough. Yet if this does
not satisfy you, I say further, we are as certain hereof
as your own Pope Sixtus Quintus was. He in his
preface to his Bible tells us, "that " in the pervestiga-
tion of the true and genuine text, it was perspicuously
manifest to all men, that there was no argument more
firm and certain to be relied upon, than the faith of an-
cient books." Now this ground we have to build upon
as well as he had; and therefore our certainty is
as great, and stands upon as certain ground as his
did.

5Q. This is not all I have to say in this matter : for
I will add, moreover, that we are as certain in what
language the scripture is uncorrupted, as any man in
your church was, until Clement the Eighth set forth
your own approved edition of your vulgar translation.
For you do not, nor cannot, without extreme impudence,
deny, that until then, there were great variety of copies
current in divers parts of your church, and those very
frequent in various lections ; all which copies might
possibly be false in some things, but more than one
sort of them could not possibly be true in all things.

^ 111 hac germani textus pervestigatione, satis perspicue inter
omnes constat, nullum argumentum esse aut certius aut firmius,
quam antiquorum probatorum codicum Latinorum fidem, &c. Sic
Sixtus in Praef.

ANSWER. whereby to judge of Controversies. 199

Neither were it less impudence to pretend, that any
man in your church could until Clement's time have
any certainty what that one true copy and reading was
(if there were any one perfectly true). Some indeed,
that had got Sixtus's Bible, might, after the edition of
that, very likely think themselves cocksure of a per-
fect, true, uncorrupted translation, without being be-
holden to Clement ; but how foully they were abused
and deceived that thought so, the edition of Clement
differing from that of Sixtus in a multitude of places,
doth sufficiently demonstrate.

57. This certainty therefore, in what language the
scripture remains uncorrupted, is it necessary to have
it, or is it not ? If it be not, I hope we may do well
enough without it. If it be necessary, what became of
your church for one thousand five hundred years to-
gether ? All which time you must confess she had no
such certainty ; no one man being able truly and upon
good ground to say, " This or this copy of the Bible is
pure and perfect and uncorrupted in all things." And
now at present, though some of you are grown to a
higher degree of presumption in this point, yet are you as
far as ever from any true and real and rational assur-
ance of the absolute purity of your authentic translation,
which I suppose myself to have proved unanswerably
in divers places.

58. In the sixteenth division, it is objected to pro-
testants, in a long discourse transcribed out of the Pro-
testants' Apology, that their " translations of the scrip-
ture are very different, and by each other mutually
condemned. Luther's translation by Zuinglius, and
others ; that of the Zuinglians, by Luther ; the trans-
lation of (Ecolampadius, by the divines of Basil ; that
of Castalio, by Beza ; that of Beza, by Castalio ; that
of Calvin, by Carolus Molinaeus ; that of Geneva, by

o 4

J200 Scripture the only Bute p. i. ch. ii.

M. Parker, and king James ; and, lastly, one of our
translations by the puritans."

59. All which might have been as justly objected
against that great variety of translations extant in the
primitive church, and made use of by the fathers and
doctors of it. For vrhich, I desire not that my word,
but St. Austin's may be taken : " They which have
translated the scriptures out of the Hebrew into Greek
may be numbered ; but the Latin interpreters are in-
numerable : for whensoever any one, in the first times
of Christianity, met with a Greek Bible, and seemed to
himself to have some ability in both languages, he pre-
sently ventured upon an interpretation." So he, in his
second book of Christian Doctrine, chap. 11. Of all these,
that which was called the Italian translation was es-
teemed best ; so we may learn from the same St. Au-
stin, in chap. 15. of the same book : " Amongst all these
interpretations," saith he, " let the Italian be preferred ;
for it keeps closer to the letter, and is perspicuous in the
sense." Yet so far was the church of that time from
presuming upon the absolute purity and perfection
even of this best translation, that St. Hierom thought it
necessary to make a new translation of the Old Testa-
ment out of the Hebrew fountain, (which himself testifies
in his book deViris illustribus,) and to correct the vulgar
version of the New Testament, according to the truth
of the original Greek ; amending many errors which
had crept into it, whether by the mistake of the author
or the negligence of the transcribers ; which work he
undertook and performed at the request of Damasus,
bishop of Rome. " You constrain me," saith he, " to
make a new work of an old : that after the copies of
the scriptures have been dispersed through the whole
world, I should sit, as it were, an arbitrator amongst
them ; and because they vary among themselves, should

ANSWER. whereby to judge of Controvei'des, 201

determine what are those things [in them] which con-
sent with the Greek verity." And after : " Therefore
this present preface promises the four Gospels only, cor-
rected by collation with Greek copies. But, that they
might not be very dissonant from the custom of the
Latin reading, I have so tempered with my style the
translation of the ancients, that those things amended
which did seem to change the sense, other things I have
suffered to remain as they were." So that in this mat-
ter protestants must either stand or fall with the pri-
mitive church.

60. The corruption that you charge Luther with,
and the falsification that you impute to Zuinglius, what
have we to do with them? or why may not we as
justly lay to your charge the errors which Lyranus,
or Paulus Brugensis, or Lauren tins Valla, or Cajetan,
or Erasmus, or Arias Montanus, or Augustus Nebien-
sis, or Pagnine, have committed in their translation ?

61. Which yet I say not, as if these translations of
Luther and Zuinglius were absolutely indefensible ;
for what such great difference is there heiween faith
without the works of the law, and faith alone without
the works of the law? or, why does not without, alone,
signify all one with alone, without? Consider the
matter a little better, and observe the use of these
phrases of speech in our ordinary talk, and perhaps you
will begin to doubt whether you had sufficient ground
for this invective. And then for Zuinglius, if it be
true (as they say it is) that the language our Saviour
spake in had no such word as to signify, but used al-
ways to be instead of it, as it is certain the scripture
does in a hundred places ; then this translation, which
you so declaim against, will prove no falsification in
Zuinglius, but a calumny in you.

62. " But the faith of protestants relies upon scrip-

202 Scripture the only Rule p. i. ch. ii.

ture alone ; scripture is delivered to most of them by-
translations ; translations depend upon the skill and
honesty of men, who certainly may err because they
are men, and certainly do err, at least some of them,
because their translations are contrary. It seems then
the faith, and consequently the salvation of protestants,
relies upon fallible and uncertain grounds."

63. This objection, though it may seem to do you a
great service for the present, yet I fear you will repent
the time that ever you urged it against us as a fault,
that we make men's salvation depend upon uncertain-
ties ; for the objection returns upon you many ways ;
as first, thus, the salvation of many millions of papists
(as they suppose and teach) depends upon their having
the sacrament of penance truly administered unto them ;
this again upon the minister's being a true priest.
That such or such a man is priest, not himself, much
less any other, can have any possible certainty ; for it
depends upon a great many contingent and uncertain
supposals. He that will pretend to be certain of it
must undertake to know for a certain all these things
that follow :

64. First, that he was baptized with due matter.
Secondly, with the due form of words, which he cannot
know, unless he were both present and attentive.
Thirdly, he must know that he was baptized with
due intention, and that is, that the minister of his bap-
tism was not a secret Jew, nor a Moor, nor an Atheist,
(of all which kinds, I fear, experience gives you just
cause to fear, that Italy and Spain have priests not a
few,) but a Christian, in heart as well as profession,
(otherwise, believing the sacrament to be nothing, in
giving it he could intend to give nothing,) nor a Samo-
satenian, nor an Arian, but one that was capable of
having due intention, from which they that believe not

ANSWER. whereby to judge of Controversies, 20^

the doctrine of the Trinity are excluded by you. And,
lastly, that he was neither drunk nor distracted at the
administration of the sacrament, nor out of negligence
or malice omitted his intention.

Q5. Fourthly, he must undertake to know that the
bishop which ordained him priest ordained him com-
pletely with due matter, form, and intention ; and,
consequently, that he again was neither Jew, nor Moor,
nor Atheist, nor liable to any such exception as is un-
consistent with due intention in giving the sacrament
of orders.

6Q. Fifthly, he must undertake to know, that the
bishop which made him priest was a priest himself;
for your rule is. Nihil dat quod non hahet: and
consequently, that there was again none of the former
nullities in his baptism, which might make him in-
capable of ordination, nor no invalidity in his ordina-
tion, but a true priest to ordain him again, the re-
quisite matter and form, and due intention all con-
curring.

67. Lastly, he must pretend to know the same of
him that made him priest, and him that made him
priest, even until he comes to the very fountain of
priesthood. For take any one in the whole train and
succession of ordainers, and suppose him, by reason of
any defect, only a supposed, and not a true priest ;
then, according to your doctrine, he could not give a
true, but only a supposed priesthood ; and they that
receive it of him, and again, they that derive it from
them, can give no better than they received ; receiving
nothing but a name and shadow, can give nothing but
a name and shadow; and so from age to age, from
generation to generation, being equivocal fathers beget
only equivocal sons ; no principle in geometry being
more certain than this, that " the unsuppliable defect

204 Scripture the only Rule p. i. ch. ii.

of any necessary antecedent must needs cause a nullity
of all those consequences which depend upon it." In
fine, to know this one thing you must first know ten
thousand others, whereof not any one is a thing that
can be known, there being no necessity that it should
be true which only can qualify any thing for an object
of science, but only at the best a high degree of pro-
bability that it is so. But then, that of ten thousand
probables no one should be false ; that of ten thousand
requisites, whereof any one may fail, not one should
be wanting ; this to me is extremely improbable, and
even cousin-german to impossible. So that the assur-
ance hereof is like a machine composed of an innumer-
able multitude of pieces, of which it is strangely un-
likely but some will be out of order ; and yet if any one
be so, the whole fabric of necessity falls to the ground :
and he that shall put them together, and maturely con-
sider all the possible ways of lapsing, and nullifying
a priesthood in the church of Rome, I believe will be
very inclinable to think, that it is an hundred to one,
that, amongst a hundred seeming priests, there is not
one true one : nay, that it is not a thing very impro-
bable, that amongst those many millions which make
up the Romish hierarchy, there are not twenty true.
But be the truth in this what it will be, once this is
certain, that they which make men's salvation (as you
do) depend upon priestly absolution, and this again (as
you do) upon the truth and reality of the priesthood
that gives it, and this, lastly, upon a great multitude
of apparent uncertainties, are not the fittest men in the
world to object to others, as a horrible crime, " that
they make men's salvation depend upon fallible and
uncertain foundations." And let this be the first re-
torting of your argument.

68. But suppose this difficulty assoiled, and that an

ANSWER. whereby to judge of Controversies. 205

angel from heaven should ascertain you (for other
assurances you can have none) that the person you
make use of is a true priest, and a competent minister
of the sacrament of penance ; yet still the doubt vi^ill
remain, whether he will do you that good which he
can do, whether he will pronounce the absolving words
with intent to absolve you? For perhaps he may
bear you some secret malice, and project to himself
your damnation for a complete Italian revenge. Per-
haps (as the tale is of a priest that was lately burnt in
France) he may upon some conditions have compacted
with the Devil to give no sacraments with intention.
Lastly, he may be (for aught you can possibly know)
a secret Jew, or Moor, or Antitrinitarian, or perhaps
such a one as is so far from intending your forgive-
ness of sins and salvation by this sacrament, that in
his heart he laughs at all these things, and thinks sin
nothing, and salvation a word. All these doubts you
must have clearly resolved (which can hardly be done
but by another revelation) before you can upon good
grounds assure yourself that your true priest gives
you true and effectual absolution. So that when you
have done as much as God requires for your salvation,
yet can you by no means be secure, but that you may
have the ill luck to be damned ; which is to make
salvation a matter of chance, and not of choice ; and
which a man may fail of, not only by an ill life, but
by ill fortune. Verily, a most comfortable doctrine for
a considering man lying upon his death-bed, who either
feels or fears that his repentance is but attrition only,
and not contrition, and consequently believes, that if
he be not absolved really by a true priest, he cannot
possibly escape damnation. Such a man, for his com-
fort, you tell, first, (you that will have " men's salva-
tion depend upon no uncertainties,") that though he

Scripture the only Rule p. i. ch. ii.

verily believe that his sorrow for his sins is a true
sorrow, and his purpose for amendment a true pur-
pose, yet he may deceive himself ; perhaps it is not ;
and if it be not, he must be damned. You bid him
hope well ; but spes est rei incertce nomen. You tell
him, secondly, that though the party he confesses to,
seem to be a true priest, yet, for aught he knows, or
for aught himself knows, by reason of some secret
undiscernible invalidity in his baptism or ordination,
he may be none ; and if he be none, he can do nothing.
This is a hard saying ; but this is not the worst. You
tell him, thirdly, that he may be in such a state, that
he cannot, or if he can, that he will not, give the
sacrament with due intention ; and if he does not, all
is in vain. Put case a man by these considerations
should be cast into some agonies ; what advice, what
comfort would you give him ? Verily, I know not what
you could say to him but this ; that first, for the quali-
fication required on his part, he might know that he de-
sired to have true sorrow, and that that is sufficient :
but then, if he should ask you, why he might not know
his sorrow to be a true sorrow, as well as his desire
to be sorrowful to be a true desire ; I believe you
would be put to silence. Then, secondly, to quiet his
fears concerning the priest and his intention, you
should tell him, by my advice, that God's goodness
(which will not suffer him to damn men for not doing
better than their best) will supply all such defects as
to human endeavours were unavoidable. And, there-
fore, though his priest were indeed no priest, yet to
him he should be as if he were one ; and if he gave
absolution without intention, yet in doing so he should
hurt himself only, and not his penitent. This were
some comfort indeed, and this were to settle men's sal-
vation upon reasonable certain grounds. But this, I

ANSWER. whereby to judge of Controversies. 207

fear, you will never say; for this were to reverse
many doctrines established by your church ; and be-
sides, to degrade your priesthood from a great part of
their honour, by lessening the strict necessity of the
laity's dependance upon them : for it were to say, that
" the priest's intention is not necessary to the obtaining
of absolution ;" which is to say, that it is not in the
parson's power to damn whom he will in his parish,
because, by this rule, God should supply the defect
which his malice had caused : and, besides, it were to
say, that "infants dying without baptism might be
saved ;" God supplying the want of baptism, which to
them is unavoidable : but, beyond all this, it were to
put into my mouth a full and satisfying answer to
your argument, which I am now returning; so that
in answering my objection you should answer your
own: for then I should tell you, that it were alto-
gether as abhorrent from the goodness of God, and as
repugnant to it, to suffer an ignorant layman's soul to
perish, merely for being misled by an undiscernible
false translation, which yet was commended to him by
the church, which (being of necessity to credit some in
this matter) he had reason to rely upon, either above
all other or as much as any other, as it is to damn a
penitent sinner for a secret defect in that desired
absolution, which his ghostly father perhaps was
an atheist and could not give him, or was a villain,
and would not. This answer, therefore, which alone
would serve to comfort your penitent in his perplex-
ities, and to assure him that he cannot fail of salva-
tion, if he will not, for fear of inconvenience you
must forbear : and seeing you must, I hope you will,
come down from the pulpit, and preach no more
against others for " making men's salvation depend
upon fallible and uncertain grounds," lest by judging

Scripture the only Rule p. i. ch. ii.

others you make yourselves, and your own church, in-
excusable, who are strongly guilty of this fault above
all the men and churches of the world ; whereof I
have already given you two very pregnant demonstra-
tions, drawn from your presumptuous tying God and
salvation to your sacraments ; and the efficacy of them
to your priest's qualifications and intentions.

69. Your making the salvation of infants depend on
baptism a casual thing, and in the power of man to
confer or not confer, would yield me a third of the
same nature. And your suspending the same on the
baptizer's intention, a fourth. And, lastly, your mak-
ing the real presence of Christ in the eucharist depend
upon the casualties of the consecrator's true priesthood
and intention, and yet commanding men to believe it
for certain that he is present, and to adore the sacra-
ment, which, according to your doctrine, for aught
they can possibly know, may be nothing else but a
piece of bread, so exposing them to the danger of idol-
atry, and consequently of damnation, doth offer me a
fifth demonstration of the same conclusion, if I thought
fit to insist upon them. But I have no mind to draw
any more out of this fountain ; neither do I think it
charity to cloy the reader with uniformity, when the
subject affords variety.

70. Sixthly ; therefore, I return it thus : the faith of
papists relies alone upon their church's infallibility. That
there is any church infallible, and that theirs is it,
they pretend not to believe, but only upon " prudential
motives." Dependance upon prudential motives they
confess to be obnoxious to a possibility of erring.
What then remaineth, but truth, faith, salvation, and
all, must in them rely upon a fallible and uncertain
ground !

71. Seventhly, the faith of papists relies upon the

ANSWER. whereby to judge of Controversies, 209

church alone. The doctrine of the church is delivered
to most of them by their parish priest, or ghostly
father, or at least by a company of priests, who, for
the most part^ sure, are men and not angels, in whom
nothing is more certain than a most certain possibility
to err. What then remaineth, but that '' truth, faith,
salvation, and all, must in them rely upon a fallible
and uncertain ground ?"

72. Eighthly, thus : it is apparent and undeniable,
that many thousands there are who believe your re-
ligion upon no better grounds than a man may have
for the belief almost of any religion. As some believe
it, because their forefathers did so, and they were good
people. Some, because they were christened and
brought up in it. Some, because many learned and
religious men are of it. Some, because it is the re-
ligion of their country, where all other religions are
persecuted and proscribed. Some, because protestants
cannot shew a perpetual succession of professors of all
their doctrines. Some, because the service of your
church is more stately and pompous and magnificent.
Some, because they find comfort in it. Some, because
your religion is further spread, and hath more profes-
sors of it, than the religion of protestants. Some, be-
cause your priests compass sea and land to gain prose-
lytes to it. Lastly, an infinite number by chance, and
they know not why, but only because they are sure
they are in the right. This which I say is a most
certain experimented truth, and if you will deal in-
genuously, you will not deny it. And, without ques-
tion, he that builds his faith upon our English transla-
tion goes upon a more prudent ground than any of
these can with reason be pretended to be. What then
can you allege, but that with you, rather than with us,

CHILLINGWORTH, VOL. I. P

210 Scripture the only Rule p. i. ch. ii.

" truth and faith and salvation, and all, rely upon fal-
lible and uncertain grounds ?"

73. Ninthly, your Rhemish and Doway translations
are delivered to your proselytes (such, I mean, that are
dispensed with for the reading of them) for the direc-
tion of their faith and lives. And the same may be
said of your translations of the Bible into other national
languages, in respect of those that are licensed to read
them. This, I presume, you will confess. And, more-
over, that these translations came not by inspiration,
but were the productions of human industry ; and that
not angels, but men, were the authors of them. Men,
I say, mere men, subject to the same passions and to
the same possibility of erring with our translators.
And then, how does it not unavoidably follow, that in
them which depend upon these translations for their
direction, " faith and truth and salvation, and all, relies
upon fallible and uncertain grounds ?"

74. Tenthly and lastly, (to lay the axe to the root
of the tree,) the Helena which you so fight for, your
vulgar translation, though some of you believe, or pre-
tend to believe it to be, in every particular of it, the
pure and uncorrupted word of God ; yet others among
you, and those as good and zealous catholics as you,
are not so confident hereof.

75. First, for all those who have made translations
of the whole Bible or any part of it different many
times in sense from the vulgar, as Lyranus, Cajetan,
Pagnine, Arias, Erasmus, Valla, Steuchus, and others,
it is apparent, and even palpable, that they never
dreamt of any absolute perfection and authentical in-
fallibility of the vulgar translation. For if they had,
why did they in many places reject it, and differ
from it ?

ANSWER. whereby to judge of Controversies, 211

76. Vega was present at the council of Trent, when
the decree was made, which made the vulgar edition
(then not extant any where in the world) authentical,
and not to be rejected upon any pretence whatsoever.
At the forming this decree, Vega, I say, was present,
understood the mind of the council as well as any
man, and professes that he was instructed in it by the
president of it, the cardinal S. Cruce. And yet he
hath written, that the " council in this decree meant to
pronounce this translation free, not simply from all
error, but only from such errors, out of which any
opinion pernicious to faith and manners might be col-
lected." This, Andradius, in his defence of that council,
reports of Vega, and assents to himself. Driedo, in
his Book of the Translation of Holy Scripture, hath
these words, very pregnant and pertinent to the same
purpose : " The see apostolic hath approved or ac-
cepted Hierom's edition, not as so wholly consonant to
the original, and so entire and pure and restored in
all things, that it may not be lawful for any man,
either by comparing it with the fountain, to examine
it, or in some places to doubt whether or no Hierom
did understand the true sense of the scripture ; but
only, as an edition to be preferred before all others
then extant, and no where deviating from the truth in
the rules of faith and good life." Mariana, even where
he is a most earnest advocate for the vulgar edition,
yet acknowledges the imperfection of it in these words :
" The faults of the vulgar edition are not approved °
by the decree of the council of Trent, a multitude
whereof we did collect from the variety of copies."
And again, " We maintain that the Hebrew and Greek
were by no means rejected by the Trent fathers; and
that the Latin edition is indeed approved : yet not
o Pro edit. vulg. c. 21. p. 99.
P 2

212 Scripture the only Rule p. i. ch. ii.

so, as if they did deny that some places might be
translated more plainly, some more properly, whereof
it were easy to produce innumerable examples." And
this he there professes to have learnt of Laines, the
then general of the society ; who was a great part of
that council, present at all the actions of it, and of
very great authority in it.

77. To this so great authority he adds a reason of
his opinion ; which with all indifferent men will be of
a far greater authority. " If the council," saith he,
'* had purposed to approve an edition in all respects,
and to make it of equal authority and credit with the
fountains, certainly they ought with exact care first to
have corrected the errors of the interpreter :" which
certainly they did not.

78. Lastly, Bellarmine himself, though he will not
acknowledge any imperfection in the vulgar edition,
yet he acknowledges that the case may, and does oft-
times, so fall out, that " p it is impossible to discern
which is the true reading of the vulgar edition, but
only by recourse unto the originals and dependance
upon them."

79. From all which it may evidently be collected,
that though some of you flatter yourselves with a vain
imagination of the certain absolute purity and perfec-
tion of your vulgar edition, yet the matter is not so
certain and so resolved, but that the best learned men
amongst you are often at a stand, and very doubtful
sometimes whether your vulgar translation be true,
and sometimes whether this or that be your vulgar
translation, and sometimes undoubtedly resolved that
your vulgar translation is no true translation, nor con-
sonant to the original, as it was at first delivered. And
what then can be alleged, but that out of your own

P Bell, de Verbo Dei, 1. 2. c. 1 1. p. 120.

ANSWER. whereby to Judge of Controversies. 213

grounds it may be inferred and enforced upon you,
that not only in your laymen, but your clergymen and
scholars, " faith and truth and salvation, and all, de-
pends upon fallible and uncertain grounds ?" And thus,
by ten several retortions of this one argument, I have
endeavoured to shew you, hovt^ ill you have complied
with your own advice, which was, " to take heed of
urging arguments that might be returned upon you."
I should now, by a direct answer, shew, that it presseth
not us at all ; but I have in passing done it already in
the end of the second retortion of this argument^ and
thither I refer the reader.

80. Whereas therefore you exhort them " that will
have assurance of true scriptures, to fly to your church
for it ;" I desire to know (if they should follow your
advice) how they should be assured that your church
can give them any such assurance, which hath been
confessedly so negligent, as to suffer many whole books
of scripture to be utterly lost : again, in those that
remain, confessedly so negligent, as to suffer the ori-
ginals of these that remain to be corrupted : and,
lastly, so careless of preserving the integrity of the
copies of her translation, as to suffer infinite variety of
readings to come into them, without keeping any one
perfect copy, which might have been as the standard
and Polycletus's canon to correct the rest by. So that,
" which was the true reading, and which the false,
it was utterly undiscernible, but only by comparing
them with the originals," which also she pretends " to
be corrupted."

81. But " Luther himself, by unfortunate experience,
was at length enforced to confess thus much, saying,
* If the world last longer, it will be again necessary to
receive the decrees of councils, by reason of divers in-»
terpretations of scripture which now reign.' "

p 3

214 Scripture the only Rule p. i. ch. ii.

82. And what if Luther, having a pope in his belly,
(as he was wont to say that most men had,) and desir-
ing perhaps to have his own interpretations pass with-
out examining, spake such words in heat of argument?
Do you think it reasonable that we should subscribe
to Luther's divinations and angry speeches ? Will you
oblige yourself to answer for all the assertions of your
private doctors ? If not, why do you trouble us with
what Luther says, and what Calvin says ? Yet this I
say not, as if these words of Luther made any thing
at all for your present purpose. For what if he feared,
or pretended to fear, that the infallibility of councils
being rejected, some men would fall into greater errors
than were imposed upon them by the councils ? Is
this to confess that there is any present visible church,
upon whose bare authority w^e may infallibly receive
the true scriptures, and the true sense of them ? Let
the reader judge. But, in my opinion, to fear a greater
inconvenience may follow from the avoiding of the less,
is not to confess that the less is none at all.

83. For Dr. Covel's " commending your translation,"
what is it to the business in hand ? Or how proves it
the perfection of it, which is here contested, any more
than St. Augustine's commending the Italian transla-
tion argues the perfection of that, or that there was
no necessity that St. Hierom should correct it ? Dr.
Covel commends your translation, and so does the
bishop of Chichester, and so does Dr. James, and so do I.
But I commend it for a good translation, not for a
perfect. Good may be good, and deserve commenda-
tions ; and yet better may be better. And though he
says, that "the then approved translation of the church
of England is that which cometh nearest the vulgar,"
yet he does not say that it agrees exactly with it. So
that whereas you infer, " that the truth of your trans-

ANSWER. whereby to judge of Controversies. 215

lation must be the rule to judge of the goodness of
ours ;" this is but a vain flourish. For to say of our
translations, that is the best which comes nearest the
vulgar, (and yet it is but one man that says so,) is not
to say it is therefore the best, because it does so : for
this may be true by accident, and yet the truth of our
translation no way depend upon the truth of yours :
for had that been their direction, they would not only
have made a translation that should come near to
yours, but such a one which should exactly agree with
it, and be a translation of your translation.

84. Ad ^. 17. In this division you charge us "with
great uncertainty concerning the true meaning of scrip-
ture," which hath been answered already, by saying,
that if you speak of plain places, (and in such all things
necessary are contained,) we are sufficiently certain of
the meaning of them, neither need they any inter-
preter : if of obscure and difficult places, we confess we
are uncertain of the sense of many of them : but then
we say there is no necessity we should be certain : for
if God's will had been we should have understood him
more certainly, he would have spoken more plainly.
And we say besides, that as we are uncertain, so are
you too ; which he that doubts of, let him read your
commentators upon the Bible, and observe their vari-
ous and dissonant interpretations, and he shall in this
point need no further satisfaction.

85. But seeing " there are contentions among us,
we are taught by nature and scripture and experience"
(so you tell us out of Mr. Hooker) " to seek for the
ending of them, by submitting unto some judicial sen-
tence, whereunto neither part may refuse to stand."
This is very true. Neither should you need to per-
suade us to seek such a means of ending all our con-
troversies, if we could tell where to find it. But this

p 4

216 Scripture the only Rule p. i. ch. ii.

we know, that none is fit to pronounce for all the
world a judicial definitive obliging sentence in contro-
versies of religion, but only such a man, or such a
society of men, as is authorized thereto by God. And
besides, we are able to demonstrate, that it hath not
been the pleasure of God to give to way man, or society
of men, any such authority. And therefore, though
we wish heartily that all controversies were ended, as
we do that all sin were abolished, yet we have little
hope of the one or the other until the world be ended :
and in the meanwhile think it best to content ourselves
with, and to persuade others unto, an unity of charity,
and mutual toleration ; seeing God hath authorized no
man to force all men to unity of opinion. Neither do
we think it fit to argue thus ; To us it seems convenient
there should be one judge of all controversies for the
whole world ; therefore God hath appointed one : but
more modest and more reasonable to collect thus ; God
hath appointed no such judge of controversies ; there-
fore, though it seems to us convenient there should be
one, yet it is not so ; or though it were convenient for
us to have one, yet it hath pleased God (for reasons
best known to himself) not to allow us this conveni-
ence.

86. Dr. Field's words which follow, I confess, are
somewhat more pressing ; and if he had been infalli-
ble, and the words had not slipt unadvisedly from him,
they were the best argument in your book. But yet
it is evident out of his book, and so acknowledged by
some of your own, that he never thought of any one
company of Christians invested with such authority
from God, that all men were bound to receive their
decrees without examination, though they seem con-
trary to scripture and reason, which the church of
Rome requires. And therefore, if he have in his pre-

ANSWER. whereby to judge of Controversies. 217

face strained too high in commendation of the subject
he writes of, (as writers very often do in their prefaces
and dedicatory epistles,) what is that to us ? Besides,
by " all the societies of the world," it is not impossible,
nor very improbable, he might mean, all that are or
have been in the world, and so include even the pri-
mitive church ; and her communion we shall embrace,
her direction we shall follow, her judgment we shall
rest in, if we believe the scripture, endeavour to find
the true sense of it, and live according to it.

87. Ad J. 18. That the true interpretation of the
scripture ought to be received from the church, you
need not prove ; for it is very easily granted by them,
who profess themselves very ready to receive all truths,
much more the true sense of scripture, not only from
the church, but from any society of men, nay, from any
man whatsoever.

88. That the "church's interpretation of scripture is
always true," that is it which you would have said :
and that in some sense may be also admitted ; viz. if
you speak of that church which before you spake of
in the 14th J., that is, of the church of all ages since
the apostles. Upon the tradition of which church, you
there told us, " we were to receive the scripture, and to
believe it to be the word of God." For there you teach
us, that '• our faith of scripture depends on a principle
which requires no other proof ;" and that " such is
tradition, which from hand to hand, and age to age,
bringing us up to the times and persons of the apostles,
and our Saviour himself, cometh to be confirmed by all
those miracles, and other arguments, whereby they
convinced their doctrine to be true." Wherefore the
ancient fathers avouch, that we must receive the sacred
scripture upon the tradition of this church. The tra-
dition then of this church, you say, must teach us what

218 Scripture the only Rule p. i. ch. h.

is scripture ; and we are willing to believe it. And
now, if you make it good unto us, that the same tradi-
tion, down from the apostles, hath delivered from age
to age, and from hand to hand, any interpretation of
any scripture, we are ready to embrace that also.
But now, if you will argue thus : The church in one
sense tells us what is scripture, and we believe ; there-
fore if the church, taken in another sense, tells us, this
or that is the meaning of the scripture, we are to believe
that also ; this is too transparent sophistry to take any
but those that are willing to be taken.

89. If there be any traditive interpretation of scrip-
ture, produce it, and prove it to be so ; and we embrace
it. But the tradition of all ages is one thing ; and the
authority of the present church, much more of the
Roman church, which is but a part, and a corrupted
part of the catholic church, is another. And therefore,
though we are ready to receive both scripture and the
sense of scripture upon the authority of original tradi-
tion, yet we receive neither the one nor the other upon
the authority of your church.

90. First, For the scriptures, how can we receive
them upon the authority of your church, who hold now
those books to be canonical which formerly you rejected
from the canon ? I instance in the Book of Maccabees
and the Epistle to the Hebrews : the first of these you
held not to be canonical in St. Gregory's time, or else
he was no member of your church ; for it is apparent^
he held otherwise : the second you rejected from the
canon in St. Hierom's time, as it is evident out of** many
places of his works.

q See Greg. Mor. 1. 19. c. 13.

*■ Thus he testifies, Com. in Isa. c. vi. in these words : "Unde et
Paulus Apost. in Epist. ad Heb. (quam Latina consuetudo non re-

ANSWER. whereby to judge of Controversies. 219

91. If you say, (which is all you can say,) that " Hie-
rom spake this of the particular Roman church, not of
the Roman catholic church;" I answer, there was none
such in his time, none that was called so. Secondly,
what he spake of the Roman church must be true of
all other churches, if your doctrine of the necessity of
the conformity of all other churches to that church
were then catholic doctrine. Now then choose whether
you will, either that the particular Roman church was
not then believed to be the mistress of all other churches,
notwithstanding ad hanc ecclesiam, necesse est omnern
convenire ecclesiam, hoc est^ omnes qui sunt undique

fideles ; which cardinal Perron and his translatress so
often translate false : or if you say she was, you will
run into a greater inconvenience, and be forced to say,
that all the churches of that time rejected from the
canon the Epistle to the Hebrews, together with the
Roman church : and consequently, that the catholic
church may err in rejecting from the canon scriptures
truly canonical.

92. Secondly, How can we receive the scripture
upon the authority of the Roman church, which hath
delivered at several times scriptures in many places
different and repugnant for authentical and canonical ?
which is most evident out of the place of Malachi,
which is so often quoted for the sacrifice of the mass,
that either all the ancient fathers had false Bibles, or
yours is false : most evident likewise from the com-
paring of the story of Jacob in Genesis with that which
is cited out of it in the Epistle to the Hebrews, ac-
cording to the vulgar edition : but, above all, to any

cipit)." And again, in c. viii. in these; ** In Epist. quae ad He-
braeos scribitur (licet earn Latina consuetude inter canonicas scrip-
turas non recipiat)," &c.

Scripture the only Rule p. i. ch/it.

one who shall compare the Bibles of Sixtus and
Clement, so evident, that the wit of man cannot dis-
guise it.

93. And thus you see what reason we have to believe
your antecedent, " that your church it is which must
declare what books be true scripture." Now, for the
consequence, that certainly is as liable to exception as
the antecedent : for if it were true, that God had pro-
mised to assist you, for the delivering of true scripture,
would this oblige him, or would it follow from hence
that he had obliged himself, to teach you^ not only suf-
ficiently, but effectually and irresistibly, the true sense
of scripture? God is not defective in things necessary;
neither will he leave himself vnthout witness, nor the
world without means of knowing his will and doing it.
And therefore it was necessary, that by his providence
he should preserve the scripture from any undiscernible
corruption in those things which he would have known ;
otherwise it is apparent it had not been liis will that
these things should be known, the only means of con-
tinuing the knowledge of them being perished. But
now neither is God lavish in superfluities ; and there-
fore having given us means sufficient for our direction,
and power sufficient to make use of these means, he
will not constrain or necessitate us to make use of
these means: for that were to cross the end of our
creation, which was, to be glorified by our free obedience ;
whereas necessity and freedom cannot stand together :
that were to reverse the law which he hath prescribed
to himself in his dealing with man ; and that is, to set
life and death before him, and leave him in the hands
of his own counsel. God gave the wise men a star to
lead them to Christ, but he did not necessitate them to
follow the guidance of this star ; that was left to their
liberty. God gave the children of Israel ajire to lead

ANSWER. whereby to judge of Controversies, 9St\

them hy night, and a pillar of cloud hy day ; but he
constrained no man to follow them ; that was left to
their liberty. So he gives the church the scripture ;
which, in those things which are to be believed or done,
are plain and easy to be followed, like the wise men's
star. Now that which he desires of us on our part
is the obedience of faith, and love of the truth, and
desire to find the true sense of it, and industry in
searching it, and humility in following, and constancy
in professing it ; all which if he should work in us by
an absolute irresistible necessity, he could no more re-
quire of us as our duty, than he can of the sun to
shine, of the sea to ebb and flow, and of all other crea-
tures to do those things which by mere necessity they
must do, and cannot choose. Besides, what an impu-
dence is it to pretend, that your church " is infallibly
directed concerning the true meaning of the scripture,"
whereas there are thousands of places of scripture
which you do not pretend certainly to understand, and
about the interpretation whereof your own doctors differ
among themselves ! If your church be infallibly directed
concerning the true meaning of scripture, why do not
your doctors follow her infallible direction ? and if they
do, how comes such difference among them in their
interpretations ?

94. Again, Why does your church thus put her
candle under a bushel, and keep her talent of inter-
preting scripture infallibly thus long wrapped up in
napkins ? Why sets she not forth infallible commenta-
ries or expositions upon all the Bible? Is it because
this would not be profitable for Christians, that scrip-
ture should be interpreted ? It is blasphemous to say
so. The scripture itself tells us, all scripture is pro-
fitable. And the scripture is not so much the words
as the sense. And if it be not profitable, why does she

222 Scripture the only Rule p. i. ch. ii.

employ particular doctors to interpret scriptures fal-
libly ? unless we must think that fallible interpretations
of scripture are profitable, and infallible interpretations
would not be so !

95. If you say, " The Holy Ghost, which assists the
church in interpreting, will move the church to inter-
pret when he shall think fit, and that the church will
do it when the Holy Ghost shall move her to do it ;" I
demand, whether the Holy Ghost's moving of the
church to such works as these be resistible by the
church or irresistible : if resistible, then the Holy
Ghost may move, and the church may not be moved.
As certainly the Holy Ghost doth always move to an
action, when he shews us plainly that it would be for
the good of men, and honour of God ; as he that hath
any sense will acknowledge, that an infallible exposition
of scripture could not but be ; and there is no conceiv-
able reason why such a work should be put off a day,
but only because you are conscious to yourselves you
cannot do it, and therefore make excuses. But if the
moving of the Holy Ghost be irresistible, and you are
not yet so moved to go about this work, then I confess
you are excused. But then I would know, whether
those popes, which so long deferred the calling of a
council for the reformation of your church, at length
pretended to be effected by the council of Trent, whe-
ther they may excuse themselves, for that they were
not moved by the Holy Ghost to do it ? I would know,
likewise, as this motion is irresistible when it comes,
so whether it be so simply necessary to the moving of
your church to any such public action, that it cannot
possibly move without it ? that is, whether the pope
now could not, if he would, seat himself in cathedra,
and fall to writing expositions upon the Bible for the
direction of Christians to the true sense of it ? If you

ANSWER. whereby to judge of Controversies,

say he cannot, you will make yourself ridiculous ; if he
can, then I would know, whether he should be infal-
libly directed in these expositions or no ; if he should,
then what need he to stay for irresistible motion?
Why does he not go about this noble work presently ?
If he should not, how shall we know that the calling of
the council of Trent was not upon his own voluntary
motion, or upon human importunity and suggestion,
and not upon the motion of the Holy Ghost ; and, con-
sequently, how shall we know whether he were assistant
to it or no, seeing he assists none but what he himself
moves to ? And whether he did move the pope to call
this council is a secret thing, which we cannot possibly
know, nor perhaps the pope himself.

96. If you say, your meaning is only, " that the
church shall be infallibly guarded from giving any false
sense of any scripture, and not infallibly assisted
positively to give the true sense of all scripture," I put
to you your own question, why should we believe the
Holy Ghost will stay there ? or why may we not as
well think he will stay at the first thing, that is, in
teaching the church what books be true scripture ? For
if the Holy Ghost's assistance be promised to all things
profitable, then will he be with them infallibly, not
only to guard them from all errors, but to guide them
to all profitable truths, such as the true sense of all scrip-
ture would be. Neither could he stay there, but defend
them irresistibly from all vices ; nor there neither, but
infuse into them irresistibly all virtues ; for all these
things would be much for the benefit of Christians.
If you say, he cannot do this without taking away
their freewill in living ; I say, neither can he neces-
sitate men to believe aright, without taking away
their freewill in believing, and in professing their
belief.

2M Scripture the only Rule p. i. ch. ii.

97. To the place of St. Austin, I answer, that
not the authority of the present church, much less of a
part of it, (as the Roman church is,) was that which
alone moved St. Austin to believe the gospel, but
the perpetual tradition of the churches of all ages.
Which you yourself have taught us to be the " only
principle by which the scripture is proved, and which
itself needs no proof ;" and to which you have referred
this very saying of St. Austin, Ego vero evangelio
non crederem, nisi, &c. ^ chap. ii. §. 14. And in the
next place which you cite out of his book, De JJtil,
Cred. c. 14, he shews that his "motives to believe w^ere
fame, celebrity, consent, antiquity." And seeing this
tradition, this consent, this antiquity, did as fully and
powerfully move him not to believe Manicha^us, as to
believe the gospel, (the Christian tradition being as full
against Manichaeus as it was for the gospel,) therefore
he did well to conclude upon these grounds, that he
had as much reason to disbelieve Manichaeus as to be-
lieve the gospel. Now if you can truly say, that the
same fame, celebrity, consent, antiquity, that the same
universal and original tradition, lies against Luther
and Calvin as did against Manichaeus, you may do well
to apply the argument against them ; otherwise it will
be to little purpose to substitute their names instead of
Manichaeus, unless you can shew the thing agrees to
them as well as him.

98. If you say, that St. Austin speaks here " of
the authority of the present church, abstracted from
consent with the ancient ;" and therefore you, seeing
you have the present church on your side against Lu-
ther and Calvin, as St. Austin against Manichaeus,
may urge the same words against them which St. Au-
stin did against him ;

® Page 55- And &c. Oxf.

ANSWER. whereby to judge of Controversies. 225

99. I answer, first, That it is a vain presumption of
yours, that the " catholic church is of your side."
Secondly, That if St. Austin speak here of that
present church which moved him to believe the gospel,
without consideration of the antiquity of it, and its
both personal and doctrinal succession from the apostles;
his argument will be like a buskin that will serve any
leg ; it will serve to keep an Arian or a Grecian from
being a Roman catholic, as well as a catholic from
being an Arian or a Grecian ; inasmuch as the Arians
and Grecians did pretend to the title of catholics and
the church, as much as the papists now do. If then
you should have come to an ancient Goth or Van-
dal, whom the Arians converted to Christianity, and
should have moved him to your religion, might he
not say the very same words to you as St. Austin
to the Manichaeans : *' I would not believe the gospel,
unless the authority of the church did move me. Them
therefore whom I obeyed, saying, Believe the gospel,
why should I not obey, saying to me. Do not believe
the Homoousians ? Choose what thou pleasest : if thou
shalt say. Believe the Arians, they warn me not to give
any credit to you. If therefore I believe them, I can-
not believe thee. If thou say. Do not believe the Arians,
thou shalt not do well to force me to the faith of the
Homoousians, because by the preaching of the Arians
I believed the gospel itself. If you say. You did well
to believe them commending the gospel, but you did
not well to believe them discommending the Homoou-
sians ; dost thou think me so very foolish, that without
any reason at all I should believe what thou wilt, and
not believe what thou wilt not ?" It were easy to put
these words into the mouth of a Grecian, Abyssine,
Georgian, or any other of any religion. And I pray
bethink yourselves what you would say in such

CHILLINGWORTH, VOL. I. Q

226 Scripture the only Rule p. i. en. ii.

a case, and imagine that we say the very same to
you.

100. Whereas you ask, " whether protestants do not
perfectly resemble those men to whom St. Austin
spake, when they will have men to believe the Roman
church delivering scripture, but not to believe her con-
demning Luther ?" I demand again, whether you be
well in your wits to say, that protestants would have
men believe the Roman church delivering scripture,
whereas they accuse her to deliver many books for
scripture which are not so ? and do not bid men to
receive any book which she delivers, for that reason,
because she delivers it ? And if you meant only, pro-
testants will have men to believe some books to be
scripture which the Roman church delivers for such,
may not we then ask, as you do. Do not papists perfectly
resemble these men, which will have men believe the
church of England delivering scripture, but not to
believe her condemning the church of Rome ?

101. And whereas you say, "St. Austin may seem
to have spoken prophetically against protestants, when
he said, ' Why should I not most diligently inquire
what Christ commanded of them before all others by
whose authority I was moved to believe that Christ
commanded any good thing ?' " I answer, until you can
shew that protestants believe that Christ commanded
any good thing, that is, that they believe the truth of
Christian religion, upon the authority of the church of
Rome, this place must be wholly impertinent to your
purpose, which is to make protestants believe your
church to be the infallible expounder of scriptures and
judge of controversies. Nay, rather, is it not directly
against your purpose ? For why may not a member of
the church of England, who received his baptism,
education, and faith, from the ministry of this church,

ANSWER. whereby to judge of Controversies, 227

say just so to you as St. Austin here to the Mani-
chees ? Why should not I most diligently inquire what
Christ commanded of them (the church of England)
before all others by whose authority I was moved to
believe that Christ commanded any good thing ? Can
you, F. or K., or whosoever you are, better declare to
me what he said, whom I would not have thought to
have been, or to be, if the belief thereof had been
recommended by you to me? This therefore (that
Christ Jesus did those miracles, and taught that doctrine,
which is contained evidently in the undoubted books
of the New Testament) I believed by fame, strength-
ened with celebrity and consent (even of those which
in other things are at infinite variance one with an-
other) ; and lastly, by antiquity (which gives an universal
and a constant attestation to them) ; but every one
may see that you, so few, (in comparison of all those
upon whose consent we ground our belief of scripture,)
so turbulent, that you damn all to the fire and to hell
that any ways differ from you ; that you profess it is
lawful for you to use violence and power, whensoever
you can have it, for the planting of your own doctrine
and extirpation of the contrary; lastly, so new in
many of your doctrines — as in the lawfulness and ex-
pedience of debarring the laity the sacramental cup,
the lawfulness and expedience of your Latin service,
transubstantiation, indulgences, purgatory, the pope's
infallibility, his authority over kings, &c. — so new, I
say, in comparison of the undoubted books of scripture,
which evidently containeth, or rather is, our religion,
and the sole and adequate object of our faith ; I say,
every one may see that you, so few, so turbulent, so
new, can produce nothing deserving authority (with
wise and considerate men). What madness is this !
Believe then the consent of Christians, which are now

q2

Scripture the only Rule p. i. ch. ii.

and have been ever since Christ in the world, that wq
ought to believe Christ ; but learn of us what Christ
said, which contradict and damn all other parts of
Christendom. Why, I beseech you? Surely if they
were not at all, and could not teach me any thing, I
would more easily persuade myself that I were not
to believe in Christ, than that I should learn any thing
concerning him from any other than them by whom I
believed him ; at least, than that I should learn what
his religion was from you, who have wronged so ex-
ceedingly his miracles and his doctrine, by forging so
evidently so many false miracles for the confirmation
of your new doctrine, which might give us just occasion,
had we no other assurance of them but your authority,
to suspect the true ones ; who, with forging so many
false stories and false authors, have taken a fair way
to make the faith of all stories questionable, if we had
no other ground for our belief of them but your author-
ity; who have brought in doctrines plainly and di-
rectly contrary to that which you confess to be the
word of Christ, and which for the most part make ei-
ther for the honour or profit of the teachers of them ;
which (if there were no difference between the Christ-
ian and the Roman church) would be very apt to make
suspicious men believe that Christian religion was a
human invention, taught by some cunning impostors
only to make themselves rich and powerful ; who make
a profession of corrupting all sorts of authors — a ready
course to make it justly questionable whether any re-
main uncorrupted. For if you take this authority
upon you upon the six ages last past, how shall
we know that the church of that time did not
usurp the same authority upon the authors of the
six last ages before them, and so upwards, until we
come to Christ himself? whose questioned doctrines

ANSWER. whereby to judge of* Cant rover sies.

none of them came from the fountain of apostolic tra-
dition, but have insinuated themselves into the streams
by little and little ; some in one age, and some in an-
other ; some more anciently, some more lately ; and
some yet are embryos, yet hatching, and in the shell ;
as the pope's infallibility, the blessed Virgin's immacu-
late conception, the pope's power over the temporalities
of kings, the doctrine of predetermination, &c., all
which yet are, or in time may be, imposed upon Christ-
ians under the title of original and apostolical tradition;
and that with that necessity, that they are told they
were as good believe nothing at all, as not believe these
things to have come from the apostles, which they
know to have been brought in but yesterday ; which
whether it be not a ready and likely way to make men
conclude thus with themselves; — lam told, that I were as
good believe nothing at all, as believe some points which
the church teacheth me, and not others; and some things
which she teacheth to be ancient and certain, I plainly
see to be new and false; therefore I will believe nothing
at all; — whether, I say, the foresaid grounds be not a
ready and likely way to make men conclude thus, and
whether this conclusion be not too often made in Italy
and Spain and France, and in England too, I leave it to
the judgment of those that have wisdom and experience.
Seeing therefore the Roman church is so far from being
a sufficient foundation for our belief in Christ, that it
is in sundry regards a dangerous temptation against it,
why should I not much rather conclude — Seeing we
receive not the knowledge of Christ and scriptures
from the church of Rome, neither from her must we
take his doctrine, or the interpretation of scripture.

102. Ad ^. 19. In this number this argument is con-
tained : " The judge of controversies ought to be intel-
ligible to learned and unlearned : the scripture is not

q3

230 Scripture the only Rule p. i. ch. ii.

so, and the church is so : therefore the church is the
judge, and not the scripture."

103. To this I answer : As to be understandable is
a condition requisite to a judge, so is not that alone
sufficient to make a judge ; otherwise you might make
yourself judge of controversies, by arguing, The scrip-
ture is not intelligible by all, but I am ; therefore I am
judge of controversies. If you say, your intent was to
conclude against the scripture, and not for the church ;
I demand why then, but to delude the simple with so-
phistry, did you say in the close of this §. " Such is the
church, and the scripture is not such ?" but that you
would leave it to them to infer in the end, (which in-
deed was more than you undertook in the beginning,)
Therefore the church is judge, and the scripture not.
I say, secondly, That you still run upon a false sup-
position, that God hath appointed some judge of all
controversies that may happen among Christians about
the sense of obscure texts of scripture ; whereas he hath
left every one to his liberty herein, in those words of
St. Paul, Quisque ahundet in sensu suo, &c. I say,
thirdly, Whereas some protestants make the scripture
judge of controversies, that they have the authority of
fathers to warrant their manner of speaking; as of
Optatus*.

104. But, speaking truly and properly, the scrip-
ture is not a judge, nor cannot be, but only a sufficient
rule for those to judge by that believe it to be the
word of God, (as the church of England and the church
of Rome both do,) what they are to believe, and what
they are not to believe. I say, sufficiently perfect and
sufficiently intelligible in things necessary, to all that
have understanding, whether they be learned or un-
learned. And my reason hereof is convincing and de-

t Contra Parmen. 1. 5. in prin.

ANSWEK. whereby to judge of Controversies. 231

monstrative, because nothing is necessary to be believed
but what is plainly revealed. For to say, that when a
place of scripture, by reason of ambiguous terras, lies
indifferent between divers senses, whereof one is true
and the other is false, that God obliges men, under
pain of damnation, not to mistake through error and
human frailty, is to make God a tyrant ; and to say,
that he requires us certainly to attain that end, for the
attaining whereof we have no certain means ; which is
to say, that, like Pharaoh, he gives no straw, and re-
quires brick ; that he reaps where he sows not ; that
he gathers where he strews not ; that he will not be
pleased with our utmost endeavours to please him,
without full, and exact, and never-failing performance ;
that his will is we should do what he knows we
cannot do ; that he will not accept of us according to
that which we have, but requireth of us what we have
not. Which whether it can consist with his goodness,
with his wisdom, and with his word, I leave it to ho-
nest men to judge. If I should send a servant to Paris
or Rome or Jerusalem, and he using his utmost dili-
gence not to mistake his way, yet notwithstanding
meeting often with such places where the road is di-
vided into several ways, whereof every one is as likely
to be true and as likely to be false as any other,
should at length mistake, and go out of the way,
would not any man say that I were an impotent,
foolish, and unjust master, if I should be offended with
him for so doing ? And shall we not tremble to impute
that to God which we would take in foul scorn if it
were imputed to ourselves ? Certainly, I for my part
fear I should not love God, if I should think so strangely
of him.

105. Again, when you say, " that unlearned and ig-
norant men cannot understand scripture," I would de^

Q 4

232 Scripture the only Rule p. i. ch. ir.

sire you to come out of the clouds, and tell us what
you mean : whether, that they cannot understand all
scripture, or that they cannot understand any scripture,
or that they cannot understand so much as is sufficient
for their direction to heaven. If the first, I believe the
learned are in the same case. If the second, every
man's experience will confute you ; for who is there
that is not capable of a sufficient understanding of the
story, the precepts, the promises, and the threats of the
gospel ? If the third, that they may understand some-
thing, but not enough for their salvations : I ask you,
first. Why then doth St. Paul say to Timothy, The scrip-
tures are able to make him wise unto salvation ? Why
doth St. Austin say, Ea quce manifeste posita sunt
in sacris scripturis, omnia continent quce pertinent
ad Jidem, moresque vivendi ? Why does every one of
the four evangelists entitle their book. The Gospel, if
any necessary and essential part of the gospel were left
out of it ? Can we imagine that either they omitted
something necessary out of ignorance, not knowing it
to be necessary ? or, knowing it to be so, maliciously
concealed it ? or, out of negligence, did the work they
had undertaken by halves ? If none of these things can
without blasphemy be imputed to them, considering
they were assisted by the Holy Ghost in this work,
then certainly it most evidently follows, that every one
of them writ the whole gospel of Christ ; I mean, all
the essential and necessary parts of it. So that if we
had no other book of scripture but one of them alone,
we should not want any thing necessary to salvation.
And what one of them hath more than another, it is
only profitable, and not necessary : necessary indeed to
be believed, because revealed ; but not therefore revealed,
because necessary to be believed.

106. Neither did they write only for the learned.

A-NswER. whereljy to judge of Controversies, 233

but for all men. This being one special means of the
preaching of the gospel, which was commanded to be
preached, not only to learned men, but to all men. And
therefore, unless we will imagine the Holy Ghost and
them to have been wilfully wanting to their own desire
and purpose, we must conceive that they intended to
speak plain, even to the capacity of the simplest;
at least, touching all things necessary to be published
by them and believed by us.

107. And whereas you pretend, " it is so easy and
obvious both for the learned and the ignorant both to
know which is the church, and what are the decrees
of the church, and what is the sense of the decrees;" I
say, this is a vain pretence.

108. For, first. How shall an unlearned man, whom
you have supposed now ignorant of scripture, how shall
he know which of all the societies of Christians is in-
deed the church ? You will say, perhaps, " He must
examine them by the notes of the church, which are,
perpetual visibility, succession, conformity with the an-
cient church," &c. But how shall he know, first, that
these are the notes of the church, unless by scripture,
which, you say, he understands not? You may say,
perhaps, he may be told so. But seeing men may de-
ceive, and be deceived, and their words are no demon-
strations, how shall he be assured that what they say
is true ? So that at the first he meets with an impreg-
nable difficulty, and cannot know the church but by
such notes, which whether they be the notes of the
church he cannot possibly know. But let us suppose
this isthmus digged through, and that he is assured
these are the notes of the true church ; how can he
possibly be a competent judge which society of Christ-
ians hath title to these notes, and which hath not?
seeing this trial of necessity requires a great sufficiency

234 Scrijjitue the oiili/ Rule v. i. ch. ii.

of knowledge of the monuments of Christian antiquity,
which no ^unlearned man can have, because he that
hath it cannot be unlearned. As for example, how shall
he possibly be able to know whether the church of
Rome hath had a perpetual succession of visible profess-
ors, which held always the same doctrine which they
now hold, without holding any thing to the contrary,
unless he hath first examined what was the doctrine
of the church in the first age, what in the second, and
so forth? And whether this be not a more difficult
work than to stay at the first age, and to examine the
church by the conformity of her doctrine with the doc-
trine of the first age, every man of ordinary under-
standing may judge.

Let us imagine him advanced a step further, and to
know which is the church ; how shall he know what
the church hath decreed, seeing the church hath not
been so careful in keeping her decrees, but that many are
lost, and many corrupted ? Besides, when even the
learned among you are not agreed concerning divers
things, whether they be de fide or not, how shall the
unlearned do ? Then for the sense of the decrees, how
can he be more capable of the understanding of them,
than of plain texts of scripture, which you will not
suffer him to understand ? especially seeing the decrees
of divers popes and councils are conceived so obscurely,
that the learned cannot agree about the sense of them :
and then they are written all in such languages, which
the ignorant understand not, and therefore must of ne-
cessity rely herein upon the uncertain and fallible au-
thority of some particular men, who inform them that
there is such a decree. And if the decrees were trans-
lated into vulgar languages, why the translators should

^ unlearned can. Oxf.

ANSWER. whereby to judge of Controversies. 235

not be as fallible as you say the translators of scripture
are, who can possibly imagine?

109. Lastly, How shall an unlearned man, or indeed
any man, be assured of the certainty of that decree,
the certainty whereof depends upon suppositions which
are impossible to be known whether they be true or no ?
for it is not the decree of a council, unless it be confirmed
by a true pope. Now the pope cannot be a true pope,
if he came in by simony ; which whether he did or no,
who can answer me ? he cannot be a true pope, unless
he were baptized ; and baptized he was not, unless the
minister had due intention. So likewise he cannot be a
true pope, unless he were rightly ordained priest; and
that again depends upon the ordainer's secret intention,
and also upon his having the episcopal character. All
which things, as I have formerly proved, depend upon
so many uncertain suppositions, that no human judg-
ment can possibly be resolved in them. I conclude,
therefore, that not the learnedest man amongst you all,
no not the pope himself, can, according to the grounds
you go upon, have any certainty that any decree of
any council is good and valid, and consequently, not
any assurance that it is indeed the decree of a council.

110. Ad §.20. If by a " private spirit" you mean a
particular persuasion that a doctrine is true, which
some men pretend, but cannot prove to come from the
Spirit of God ; I say, to refer controversies to scripture,
is not to refer them to this kind of private spirit. For
is there not a manifest difference between saying, " The
Spirit of God tells me that this is the meaning of such
a text," (which no man can possibly know to be true, it
being a secret thing,) and between saying, *' These and
these reasons I have to shew that this or that is true doc-
trine, or that this or that is the meaning of such a scrip-
ture?" Reason being a public and certain thing, and ex-

236 Scripture the only Rule p. i. ch. ii.

posed to all men's trial and examination. But now, if by
" private spirit" you understand every man's particular
reason, then your first and second inconvenience vi^ill
presently be reduced to one, and shortly to none at
all.

111. Ad §. 21. And does not also giving the office
of judicature to the church come to confer it upon
every particular man ? for before any man believes the
church infallible, must he not have reason to induce
him to believe it to be so ? and must he not judge of
those reasons, vrhether they be indeed good and firm,
or captious and sophistical? Or would you have all
men believe all your doctrine upon the church's infal-
libility, and the church's infallibility they know not
vrhy ?

112. Secondly, Supposing they are to be guided by
the church, they must use their own particular reason
to find out which is the church. And to that purpose
you yourselves give a great many notes, which you
pretend first to be certain notes of the church, and then
to be peculiar to your church, and agreeable to none
else ; but you do not so much as pretend, that either
of those pretences is evident of itself, and therefore you
go about to prove them both by reasons ; and those
reasons, I hope, every particular man is to judge of,
vrhether they do indeed conclude and convince that
which they are alleged for ; that is, that these marks are
indeed certain notes of the church ; and then, that your
church hath them, and no other.

113. One of these notes, indeed the only note of a
true and uncorrupted church, is conformity with anti-
quity ; I mean the most ancient church of all, that is,
the primitive and apostolic. Now, how is it possible
any man should examine your church by this note, but
he must by his own particular judgment find out what

ANSWER. whereby to judge of Controversies. 237

was the doctrine of the primitive church, and what is
the doctrine of the present church, and be able to an-
swer all these arguments which are brought to prove
repugnance between them? Otherwise he shall but
pretend to make use of this note for the finding the
true church, but indeed make no use of it, but receive
the church at a venture, as the most of you do, not one
in a hundred being able to give any tolerable reason
for it. So that instead of reducing men to particular
reasons, you reduce them to none at all, but to chance
and passion and prejudice, and such other ways, which
if they lead one to the truth, they lead hundreds, nay
thousands, to falsehood. But it is a pretty thing to
consider how these men can blow hot and cold out of
the same mouth to serve several purposes. Is there
hope of gaining a proselyte ? Then they will tell you,
God hath given every man reason to follow ; and
if the hlind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch:
that it is no good reason for a man's religion, that he
was born and brought up in it ; for then a Turk should
have as much reason to be a Turk, as a Christian to be
a Christian : that every man hath a judgment of dis-
cretion ; which if they will make use of, they shall
easily find that the true church hath always such and
such marks, and that their church hath them, and no
others but theirs. But then if any of theirs be per-
suaded to a sincere and sufficient trial of their church,
even by their own notes of it, and to try whether they
be indeed so conformable to antiquity as they pretend,
then their note is changed. You must not use your
own reason nor your judgment, but refer all to the
church, and believe her to be conformable to antiquity,
though they have no reason for it ; nay, though they
have evident reason to the contrary. For my part, I
am certain that God hath given us our reason, to dis-

238 Scripture the only Rule p. i. ch. n.

cern between truth and falsehood ; and he that makes
not this use of it, but believes things he knows not why;
I say, it is by chance that he believes the truth, and
not by choice ; and that I cannot but fear that God
will not accept of this sacrifice of fools.

114. But you that would not have men follow their
reason, what would you have them follow ? Their pas-
sions ? or pluck out their eyes, and go blindfold ? No,
you say, you would have them follow authority. On
God's name let them ; we also would have them follow
authority ; for it is upon the authority of universal
tradition that we would have them believe scripture.
But then, as for the authority which you would have
them follow, you will let them see reason why they
should follow it. And is not this to go a little about ?
To leave reason for a short turn, and then to come to it
again, and to do that which you condemn in others ?
It being indeed a plain impossibility for any man to
submit his reason but to reason ; for he that doth it to
authority must of necessity think himself to have
greater reason to believe that authority. Therefore the
confession cited by '^Brerely you need not think to have
been extorted from Luther and the rest. It came very
freely from them, and what they say, you practise as
much as they.

115. And whereas you say, that " a protestant ad-
mits of fathers, councils, church, as far as they agree
with scripture, which upon the matter is himself:" I
say, you admit neither of them, nor the scripture itself,
but only so far as it agrees with your church ; and your
church you admit, because you think you have reason
to do so : so that by you as well as protestants all is
finally resolved into your own reason.

^ Brerely and the rest, you need not think to have been extorted
from Luther. It came, &c. Oxf.

ANSWER. whereby to judge of Controversies, 239

116. Nor do heretics only, but Romish catholics also,
" set up as many judges as there are men and women
in the Christian world." For do not your men and
women judge your religion to be true before they be-
lieve it, as well as the men and women of other reli-
gions ? O but you say, " they receive it, not because
they think it agreeable to scripture, but because the
church tells them so." But then I hope they believe
the church because their own reason tells them they
are to do so. So that the difference between a papist
and a protestant is this : not that the one judges and
the other does not judge, but that the one judges his
guide to be infallible, the other his way to be manifest.
This same pernicious doctrine is taught by Brentius,
Zanchius, Cartwright, and others. It is so in very
deed : but it is taught also by some others, whom you
little think of. It is taught by St. Paul where he says,
Try all things ; hold fast that which is good. It is
taught by St. John in these words : Believe not every
spirit, hut try the spirits, whether they he of God or
no. It is taught by St. Peter in these : Be ye ready
to render a reason of the hope that is in you. Lastly,
this very pernicious doctrine is taught by our Saviour
in these words : If the Mind lead the hlind, hoth shall
Jail into the ditch: and. Why of yourselves judge you
not what is right f All which speeches if they do not
advise men to make use of their reason for the choice
of their religion, I must confess myself to understand
nothing. Lastly, not to be infinite, it is taught by
Mr. Knot himself, not in one page only or chapter of
his book, but all his book over ; the very writing and
publishing whereof supposes this for certain, that the
readers are to be judges whether his reasons which he
brings be strong and convincing, of which sort we have
hitherto met with none ; or else captious, or imperti-

240 Scripture the only Rule p. i. ch. ii.

nences, as indifferent men shall (as I suppose) have cause
to judge them.

117. But you demand, "What good statesmen would
they be, who should ideate or fancy such a common-
wealth as these men have framed to themselves a
church ?" Truly if this be all the fault they have, that
they say, "Every man is to use his own judgment in the
choice of his religion, and not to believe this or that
sense of scripture upon the bare authority of any
learned man or men, when he conceives he hath reasons
to the contrary which are of more weight than their
authority ; I know no reason, but notwithstanding all
this, they might be as good statesmen as any of the so-
ciety. But what hath this to do with commonwealths,
where men are bound only to external obedience unto
the laws and judgment of courts, but not to an internal
approbation of them, no, nor to conceal their judgment
of them, if they disapprove them ? As, if I conceived I
had reason to mislike the law of punishing simple theft
with death, as sir Thomas More did, I might profess
lawfully my judgment, and represent my reasons to
the king or commonwealth in a parliament, as sir
Thomas More did, without committing any fault, or
fearing any punishment.

118. To the place of St. Austin wherewith this
paragraph is concluded, I shall need give no other reply
but only to desire you to speak like an honest man,
and to say, whether it be all one for a man to "allow
and disallow in every scripture what he pleases" — which
is either to dash out of scripture such texts or such
chapters, because they cross his opinion — or to say,
(which is worse,) " though they be scripture, they are
not true ?" whether, I say, for a man thus " to allow and
disallow in scripture what he pleases," be all one, and
no greater fault, than to allow that sense of scripture

ANSWER. whereby fn judge of Controversies. 241

which he conceives to be true and genuine, and deduced
out of the words, and to disallow the contrary ? For
God's sake, sir, tell me plainly : in those texts of
scripture which you allege for the infallibility of your
church, do not you allow what sense you think true,
and disallow the contrary ? and do you not this by the
direction of your private reason ? If you do, why do
you condemn it in others ? If you do not, I pray you
tell me what direction you follow, or whether you fol-
low none at all ? If none at all, this is like drawing
lots, or throwing the dice, for the choice of a religion : if
any other, I beseech you tell me what it is. Perhaps you
will say the " church's authority ;" and that will be to
dance finely in a round, thus ; to believe the church's
infallible authority, because the scriptures avouch it ;
and to believe that scriptures say and mean so, because
they are so expounded by the church. Is not this for
a father to beget his son, and the son to beget his father ?
for a foundation to support the house, and the house
to support the foundation ? Would not Campian have
cried out at it, Ecce quos gyros, quos Mceandrosl
And to what end was this going about, when you
might as well at first have concluded the church infal-
lible, because she says so, as tlius to put in scripture
for a mere stale, and to say the church is infallible be-
cause the scripture says so, and the scripture means
so, because the church says so, which is infallible ? Is
it not most evident therefore to every intelligent man,
that you are enforced of necessity to do that yourself
which so tragically you declaim against in others ? The
church, you say, is infallible ; I am very doubtful of it;
how shall I know it? The scripture, you say, affirms
it, as in the 59th of Esay, My spirit that is in thee, &c.
Well, I confess I find there these words, but I am still
doubtful whether they be spoken of the church of Christ;

CHILLINGWORTH, VOL. I. R

242 Scripture the only Rule p. i. ch. ii.

and if they be, whether they mean as you pretend.
You say the church says so, which is infallible. Yea,
but that is the question, and therefore not to be begged,
but proved : neither is it so evident as to need no proof ;
otherwise, why brought you this text to prove it? Nor is
it of such a strange quality, above all other propositions,
as to be able to prove itself. What then remains but
that you say, reasons drawn out of the circumstances
of the text will evince that this is the sense of it. Per-
haps they will : but reasons cannot convince me, unless
I judge of them by my reason ; and for every man or
woman to rely on that, in the choice of their religion
and in the interpreting of scripture, you say is a hor-
rible absurdity ; and therefore must neither make use of
your own in this matter, nor desire me to make use of it.
119. But "universal tradition," you say, and so do I
too, *' is of itself credible ; and that hath in all ages
taught the church's infallibility with full consent." If
it have, I am ready to believe it ; but that it hath, I
hope you would not have me take upon your word ; for
that were to build myself upon the church, and the church
upon you. Let then the tradition appear ; for a secret
tradition is somewhat like a silent thunder. You will
perhaps produce, for the confirmation of it, some sayings
of some fathers, who in every age taught this doctrine ;
(as Gualterius in his chronology undertakes to do, but
with so ill success, that I heard an able man of your
religion profess, that *' in the first three centuries there
was not one authority pertinent ;") but how will you
warrant that none of them teach the contrary? Again,
how shall I be assured that the places have indeed this
sense in them, seeing there is not one father for five
hundred years after Christ that does say in plain
terms, " The church of Rome is infallible ?" What ! shall
we believe your church, that this is their meaning ? But

ANSWER. wherehj to judge of Controversies. 243

this will be again to go into the circle, which made us
giddy before ; to prove this church infallible, because
tradition says so ; tradition to say so, because the fa-
thers say so ; the fathers to say so, because the church
says so, which is infallible : yea, " but reason will shew
this to be the meaning of them." Yes, if we may use
our reason, and rely upon it : otherwise, as light shews
nothing to the blind, or to him that uses not his eyes,
so reason cannot prove any thing to him that either
hatli not or useth not his reason to judge of them.

120. Thus you have excluded yourself from all proof
of your church's infallibility from scripture or tradition:
and if you fly, lastly, to reason itself for succour, may
it not justly say to you as Jephthah said to his brethren.
Ye hm^e cast me out, and banished me, and do you now
come to me for succour ? But if there be no certainty
in reason, how shall I be assured of the certainty of those
which you allege for this purpose ? Either I may judge
of them, or not ; if not, why do you propose them ? if
I may, why do you say I may not, and make it such a
monstrous absurdity, that men in the choice of their re-
ligion should make use of their reason ? which yet, with-
out all question, none but unreasonable men can deny
to have been the chiefest end why reason was given them.
121. Ad §. 22. "A heretic he is," saith D.Potter, "who
opposeth any truth, which to be a Divine revelation
he is convinced in conscience by any means whatsoever ;
be it by a preacher or layman ; be it by reading scrip-
tures, or hearing them read." And from hence you infer,
that " he makes all these safe propounders of faith." A
most strange and illogical deduction ! For may not a
private man by evident reason convince another man,
that such or such a doctrine is Divine revelation ; and
yet though he be a true propounder in this point, yet
propound another thing falsely, and without proof,

R 2

244 Scripture the only Rule p. i. ch. ii.

and, consequently, not be a safe propounder in every
point ? Your preachers in their sermons, do they not
propose to men Divine revelations ? and do they not
sometimes convince men in conscience, by evident proof
from scripture, that the things they speak are Divine
revelations? And whosoever, being thus convinced,
should oppose this Divine revelation, should he not be
a heretic, according to your own grounds, for calling
God's own truth into question ? And would you think
yourself well dealt with, if I should collect from hence,
that you make every preacher a safe, that is, an infallible
propounder of faith ? Be the means of proposal what it
will, sufficient or insufficient, worthy of credit, or not
worthy; though it were, if it were possible, the barking
of a dog, or the chirping of a bird ; or were it the dis-
course of the Devil himself, yet if I be, I will not say
convinced, but persuaded, though falsely, that it is a
Divine revelation, and shall deny to believe it, I shall
be a formal, though not a material heretic. For he
that believes, though falsely, any thing to be Divine
revelation, and yet will not believe it to be true, must
of necessity believe God to be false ; which, according
to your own doctrine, is the formality of a heretic.

1221. And how it can be any way advantageous to
civil government, that men without warrant from God
should usurp a tyranny over other men's consciences,
and prescribe unto them, without reason, and sometimes
against reason, what they shall believe, you must shew
us plainer, if you desire we should believe. For to say,
" Verily I do not see but it must be so," is no good
demonstration : for whereas you say, '* that a man may
be a passionate and seditious creature ;" from whence
you would have us infer, that he may make use of his
interpretation to satisfy his passion, and raise sedition :
there were some colour in this consequence, if we (as

ANSWER. whereby to judge of Controversies, 245

you do) made private men infallible interpreters for
others ; for then indeed they might lead disciples after
them, and use them as instruments for their vile pur-
poses. But vrhen we say, they can only interpret for
themselves, what harm they can do by their passionate
or seditious interpretations, but only endanger both
their temporal and eternal happiness, I cannot imagine:
for though we deny the pope or church of Rome to be
an infallible judge, yet we do not deny but that there
are judges which may proceed with certainty enough
against all seditious persons, such as draw men to dis-
obedience, either against church or state, as well as
against rebels, and traitors, and thieves, and mur-
derers.

123. Ad §. 23. The next ^. in the beginning argues
thus : " For many ages there was no scripture in the
world ; and for many more there was none in many
places of the world ; yet men wanted not then and
there some certain direction what to believe : therefore
there was then an infallible judge." Just as if I should
say, York is not my way from Oxford to London,
therefore Bristol is : or, A dog is not a horse, therefore
he is a man : as if God had no other ways of revealing
himself to men, but only by scripture and an infallible
church. ^St. Chrysostom and Isidorus Pelusiota con-
ceived he might use other means. And St. Paul telleth
us, that the yvcoa-rou rod OcoO might he known hy his
works ^ and that they had the law written in their
hearts. Either of these ways might make some

y See Chrysost. Horn. i. in Mat; Isidor. Pelus. 1. 3. ep. 106;
and also Basil in Psal. xxviii. and then you shall confess, that by
other means besides these God did communicate himself unto men,
and made them receive and understand his laws. See also to the
same purpose, Heb. i. 1.

R 3

S46 Scripture the only Ride p. i. ch. ii.

faithful men, without either necessity of scripture or
church.

124. " But Dr. Potter says," you say, " In the
Jewish church there was a living judge, endowed with
an absolute infallible direction in cases of moment ; as
all points belonging to Divine faith are." And where
was that infallible direction in the Jewish church,
when they should have received Christ for their Mes-
sias, and refused him? Or perhaps this was not a
case of moment. Dr. Potter indeed might say very
well, not that the high priest was infallible, (for cer-
tainly he was not,) but that his determination was to
be of necessity obeyed, though for the justice of it
there was no necessity that it should be believed. Be-
sides, it is one thing to say that the living judge in the
Jewish church had an infallible direction ; another,
that he was necessitated to follow this direction. This
is the privilege which you challenge. But it is that,
not this, which the doctor attributes to the Jews. As
a man may truly say, the wise men had an infallible
direction to Christ, without saying or thinking that
they were constrained to follow it, and could not do
otherwise.

125. " But either the church retains still her infal-
libility, or it was divested of it upon the receiving of
holy scripture, which is absurd." An argument me-
thinks like this : Either you have horns or you have
lost them; but you never lost them, therefore you
have them still. If you say, you never had horns ; so
say I, for aught appears by your reasons, the church
never had infallibility.

126. " But some scriptures were received in some
places and not in others : therefore if scriptures were
the judge of controversies, some churches had one
judge, and some another." And what great incon-

ANSWER. whereby to jmlge of Controversies. 247

venience is there in that, that one part of England
should have one judge, and another another ; especially
seeing the books of scripture which were received by
those that received fewest, had as much of the doctrine
of Christianity in them as they all had which were
received by any ; all the necessary parts of the gospel
being contained in every one of the four Gospels, as I
have proved ? So that they which had all the books
of the New Testament had nothing superfluous ; for it
was not superfluous, but profitable, that the same thing
should be said divers times, and be testified by divers
witnesses ; and they that had but one of the four Gos-
pels wanted nothing necessary: and therefore it is vainly
inferred by you, that " with months and years, as new
canonical scriptures grew to be published, the church
altered her rule of faith and judge of controversies."

127. " Heresies," you say, " would arise after the
apostles' time, and after the writing of scriptures :
these cannot be discovered, condemned, and avoided,
unless the church be infallible : therefore there must
be a church infallible." But I pray tell me, why can-
not heresies be sufficiently discovered, condemned, and
avoided by them which believe scripture to be the rule
of faith ? If scripture be sufficient to inform us what
is the faith, it must of necessity be also sufficient to
teach us what is heresy ; seeing heresy is nothing but
a manifest deviation from and an opposition to the
faith. That which is straight will plainly teach us
what is crooked ; and one contrary cannot but mani-
fest the other. If any one should deny that there is a
God ; that this God is omnipotent, omniscient, good,
just, true, merciful, a rewarder of them that seek him,
a punisher of them that obstinately offend him ; that
Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Saviour of the
world ; that it is he by obedience to whom men must

11 4

248 Scripture the only Rule p. i. ch. ii

look to be saved : if any man should deny either his
birth, or passion, or resurrection, or ascension, or sit-
ting at the right hand of God ; his having all power
given him in heaven and earth : that it is he vrhom
God hath appointed to be judge of the quick and dead;
that all men shall rise again at the last day ; that they
which believe and repent shall be saved ; that they
which do not believe ^and repent shall be damned : if a
man should hold, that either the keeping of the Mo-
saical law is necessary to salvation, or that good works
are not necessary to salvation : in a word, if any man
should obstinately contradict the truth of any thing
plainly delivered in scripture, who does not see that
every one which believes the scripture hath a sufficient
means to discover and condemn and avoid that here-
sy, without any need of an infallible guide ? If you
say, that " the obscure places of scripture contain mat-
ters of faith ;" I answer, that it is a matter of faith to
believe that the sense of them, whatsoever it is, which
was intended by God, is true ; for he that doth not so,
calls God's truth into question. But to believe this or
that to be the true sense of them, or to believe the true
sense of them and to avoid the false, is not necessary
either to faith or salvation. For if God would have
had his meaning in these places certainly known, how
could it stand with his wisdom to be so wanting to his
own will and end as to speak obscurely ? Or how can
it consist with his justice, to require of men to know
certainly the meaning of those words which he him-
self hath not revealed ? Suppose there were an abso-
lute monarch, that in his own absence from one of his
kingdoms had written laws for the government of it,
some very plainly, and some very ambiguously and
obscurely, and his subjects should keep those that were
z or repent Oxf\

ANSWER. whereby to judge of Controversies. 24-9

plainly written with all exactness, and for those that
were obscure use their best diligence to find his mean-
ing in them, and obey them according to the sense of
them which they conceived ; should this king either
with justice or wisdom be offended with these subjects,
if by reason of the obscurity of them they mistook the
sense of them, and failed of performance by reason of
their error ?

128. " But it is more useful and fit," you say, "for the
deciding of controversies, to have, besides an infallible
rule to go by, a living infallible judge to determine
them : and from hence you conclude, that certainly
there is such a judge." But why then may not an-
other say, that it is yet more useful, for many excel-
lent purposes, that all the patriarchs should be in-
fallible, than that the pope only should ? Another,
that it would be yet more useful that all the arch-
bishops of every province should be so, than that
the patriarchs only should be so. Another, that it
would be yet more useful, if all the bishops of
every diocese were so. Another, that it would be yet
more available, that all the parsons of every parish
should be so. Another, that it would be yet more
excellent, if all the fathers of families were so. And,
lastly, another, that it were much more to be desired,
that every man and every woman were so ; just as
much as the prevention of controversies is better than
the decision of them ; and the prevention of heresies
better than the condemnation of them ; and upon this
ground conclude, by your own very consequence, that
not only a general council, nor only the pope, but all
the patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, pastors, fathers,
nay, all the men in the world, are infallible : if you say
now, as I am sure you will, that this conclusion is
most gross and absurd, against sense and experience,
then must also the ground be false from which it evi-

250 Scripture the only Rule p. i. ch. ii.

deritly and undeniably follows, viz. that that course of
dealing with men seems always more fit to Divine
Providence, which seems most fit to human reason.

129. And so, likewise, that there should men suc-
ceed the apostles which could shew themselves to be
their successors by doing of miracles, by speaking
all kinds of languages, by delivering men to Satan, as
St. Paul did Hymenaeus and the incestuous Corinthian;
it is manifest in human reason, it were incomparably
more fit and useful for the decision of controversies,
than that the successor of the apostles should have
none of these gifts, and for want of the signs of apo-
stleship be justly questionable whether he be his suc-
cessor or no : and will you now conclude, that the
popes have the gift of doing miracles as well as the
apostles had ?

130. It were in all reason very useful and requisite
that the pope should, by the assistance of God's Spirit,
be freed from the vices and passions of men, lest other-
wise the authority given him for the good of the
church he might employ (as divers popes, you well
know, have done) to the disturbance and oppression
and mischief of it. And will you conclude from hence,
that popes are not subject to the sins and passions of
other men ? that there never have been ambitious, co-
vetous, lustful, tyrannous popes ?

131. Who sees not, that for men's direction it were
much more beneficial for the church that infallibility
should be settled in the pope's person, than in a gene-
ral council ; that so the means of deciding controver-
sies might be speedy, easy, and perpetual ; whereas
that of general councils is not so. And will you hence
infer, that not the church representative, but the pope,
is indeed the infallible judge of controversies? Cer-
tainly, if you should, the Sorbonne doctors would not
think this a good conclusion.

ANSWER. whereby to judge of Controversies. 251

132. It had been very commodious, (one would think,)
that seeing either God's pleasure was, the scripture
should be translated, or else in his providence he knew
it would be so, that he had appointed some men for
this business, and by his Spirit assisted them in it,
that so we might have translations as authentical as
the original ; yet, you see, God did not think fit to
do so.

133. It had been very commodious (one would think)
that the scripture should have been, at least for all
things necessary, a rule plain and perfect ; and yet,
you say, it is both imperfect and obscure, even in
things necessary.

134. It had been most requisite (one would think)
that the copies of the Bibles should have been pre-
served free from variety of readings, which makes men
very uncertain in many places which is the word of
God arid which is the error or presumption of man ;
and yet we see God hath not thought fit so to provide
for us.

135. Who can conceive, but that an apostolic inter-
pretation of all the difficult places of scripture would
have been strangely beneficial to the church, especially
there being such danger in mistaking the sense of
them as is by you pretended, and God in his provi-
dence foreseeing that the greatest part of Christians
would not accept of the pope for the judge of contro-
versies ? And yet we see God hath not so ordered the
matter.

136. Who doth not see, that supposing the bishop
of Rome had been appointed head of the church and
judge of controversies, that it would have been in-
finitely beneficial to the church, perhaps as much as
all the rest of the Bible, that in some book of scrip-
ture, which was to be undoubtedly received, this one

252 Scripture the only Rule p. i. ch. ii.

proposition had been set down in terms, " The bishops
of Rome shall be always monarch s of the church, and
they, either alone or with their adherents, the guides
of faith, and the judges of controversies that shall arise
amongst Christians ?" This, if you will deal ingenuously,
you cannot but acknowledge ; for then all true Christ-
ians would have submitted to him, as willingly as to
Christ himself; neither needed you and your fel-
lows have troubled yourself to invent so many so-
phisms for the proof of it. There would have been no
more doubt of it among Christians, than there is of
the nativity, passion, resurrection, or ascension of
Christ. You were best now rub your forehead hard,
and conclude upon us, that because this would have
been so useful to have been done, therefore it is done.
Or if you be (as I know you are) too ingenuous to say
so, then must you acknowledge that the ground of
your argument, which is the very ground of all these
absurdities, is most absurd ; and that it is our duty to
be humbly thankful for those sufficient, nay abundant
means of salvation, which God hath of his own good-
ness granted us ; and not conclude he hath done that
which he hath not done, because, forsooth, in our vain
judgments, it seems convenient he should have done so.
137. But you demand, " what repugnance there is
between infallibility in the church and existence of
scripture, that the production of the one must be the
destruction of the other ?" Out of which words I can
frame no other argument for you than this : " There is
no repugnance between the scripture's existence and
the church's infallibility; therefore the church is in-
fallible." Which consequence will then be good, when
you can shew, that nothing can be untrue but that
only which is impossible ; that whatsoever may be
done, that also is done. Which if it were true, would

ANSWER. wherehy to judge of Controversies.

conclude both you and me to be infallible, as well as
either your church or pope ; inasmuch as there is no
more repugnance between the scripture's existence and
our infallibility, than there is between theirs.

138. " But if protestants will have the scripture
alone for their judge, let them first produce some
scripture, affirming, that by the entering thereof infal-
libility went out of the church." This argument put
in form runs thus : No scripture affirms that by the
entering thereof infallibility went out of the church ;
therefore there is an infallible church ; and therefore
the scripture alone is not judge, that is, the rule to
judge by. But as no scripture affirms that by the
entering of it infallibility went out of the church ; so
neither do we, neither have we any need to do so. But
we say, that it continued in the church, even together
with the scriptures, so long as Christ and his apostles
were living, and then departed ; God in his providence
having provided a plain and infallible rule, to supply
the defect of living and infallible guides. Certainly,
if your cause were good, so great a wit as yours is
would devise better arguments to maintain it. We can
shew no scripture affirming infallibility to have gone
out of the church, therefore it is infallible. Somewhat
like his discourse that said, It could not be proved
out of scripture that the king of Sweden was dead,
therefore he is still living. Methinks, in all reason,
you that challenge privileges, and exemption from the
condition of men, which is to be subject to error; you
that by virtue of this privilege usurp authority over
men s consciences, should produce your letters patents
from the King of heaven, and shew some express war-
rant for this authority you take upon you ; otherwise
you know the rule is, Uhi contrarmm non manifeste
prohatur^ presumrtur pro lihertate.

254 Scripture the only Rule p. i. ch. ii.

139. "But Dr. Potter may remember what himself
teacheth, ' that the church is still endued with infalli-
bility in points fundamental,' and consequently, that
infallibility in the church doth well agree with the
truth, the sanctity, yea, with the sufficiency of scrip-
ture, for all matters necessary to salvation." Still your
discourse is so far from hitting the white, that it roves
quite besides the butt. You conclude, that the infalli-
bility of the church may well agree with the truth, the
sanctity, the sufficiency of scripture. But what is this,
but to abuse your reader with the proof of that which
no man denies ? The question is not, Whether an in-
fallible church might agree with scripture ; but, whe-
ther there be an infallible church ? Jam die, posthume,
de tribus capellis. Besides, you must know there is
a wide difference between being infallible in funda-
mentals, and being an infallible guide even in funda-
mentals. Dr. Potter says that the church is the for-
mer, that is, there shall be some men in the world,
while the world lasts, which err not in fundamentals ;
for otherwise there should be no church. For to say,
The church, while it is the church, may err in funda-
mentals, implies a contradiction, and is all one as to
say. The church, while it is the church, may not be
the church. So that to say that the church is infalli-
ble in fundamentals signifies no more but this, '' There
shall be a church in the world for ever." But we
utterly deny the church to be the latter ; for to say so,
were to oblige ourselves to find some certain society of
men, of whom we might be certain that they neither
do nor can err in fundamentals, nor in declaring what
is fundamental, what is not fundamental : and, con-
sequently, to make any church an infallible guide in
fundamentals would be to make it infallible in all
things which she proposes and requires to be believed.

ANSWER. whereby to JHilge of Controversies, ^55

This therefore we deny both to your and all other
churches of any one denomination, as the Greek, the
Roman, the Abyssine ; that is, indeed, we deny it
simply to any church : for no church can possibly be
fit to be a guide, but only a church of some certain
denomination : for otherwise no man can possibly know
which is the true church, but by a preexamination of
the doctrine controverted, and that were not to be
guided by the church to the true doctrine, but by the
true doctrine to the church. Hereafter therefore, when
you hear protestants say, the church is infallible in
fundamentals, you must not conceive them as if they
meant as you do, that some society of Christians, which
may be known by adhering to some one head, for
example, the pope, or the bishop of Constantinople, is
infallible in these things ; but only thus, that true reli-
gion shall never be so far driven out of the world, but
that it shall have always, somewhere or other, some that
believe and profess it, in all things necessary to salvation.
140. But you " would therefore gladly know out
of what text he imagines that the church, by the
coming of scripture, was deprived of infallibility in
some points, and not in others ?" And I also would
gladly know, why you do thus frame to yourself vain
imaginations, and then father them upon others?
We yield unto you, that there shall be a church which
never erreth in some points, because (as we conceive)
God hath promised so much ; but not, that there shall
be such a church which doth or can err in no points,
because we find not that God hath promised such a
church, and therefore may not promise such a one to
ourselves. But, for the church's being deprived by the
scripture of infallibility in some points, and not in
others, that is a wild notion of your own, which we
have nothing to do with.

^56 Scripture the only Rule p. i. ch. ii.

141. But he affirmeth, that "the Jewish church
retained infallibility in herself: and therefore it is un-
justly and unworthily done of him to deprive the church
of Christ of it." That the Jews had sometimes an in-
fallible miraculous direction from God in some cases of
moment, he doth affirm, and had good warrant ; but
that the synagogue was absolutely infallible, he no
where affirms ; and therefore it is unjustly and un-
worthily done of you to obtrude it upon him. And,
indeed, how can the infallibility of the synagogue be
conceived, but only by settling it in the high priest,
and the company adhering and subordinate unto him ?
And whether the high priest was infallible, when he
believed not Christ to be the Messias, but condemned
and excommunicated them that so professed, and caused
him to be crucified for saying so, I leave it to Chris-
tians to judge. But then suppose God had been so
pleased to do as he did not, to appoint the synagogue
an infallible guide ; could you by your rules of logic
constrain him to appoint such an one to Christians also,
or say unto him, that in wisdom he could not do other-
wise ? Vain man, that will be thus always tying God
to your imaginations ! It is well for us that he leaves
us not without directions to him ; but if he will do this
sometimes by living guides, sometimes by written rules,
what is that to you ? May not he do what he will with
his own ?

142. And whereas you say, for the further enforcing
of this argument, " that there is greater reason to
think the church should be infallible than the syna-
gogue ; because to the synagogue all laws and cere-
monies, &c. were more particularly and minutely
delivered than in the New Testament is done, our
Saviour leaving particulars to the determination of the
church." But I pray walk not thus in generality, but

ANSWER. whereby to judge of Controversies, 257

tell us what particulars ? If you mean particular rites
and ceremonies, and orders for government, we grant
it, and you know we do so. Our Saviour only hath
left a general injunction by St. Paul, Let all things he
done decently and in order. But what order is fittest,
i. e. what time, what place, what manner, &c. is fittest,
that he hath left to the discretion of the governors
of the church. But if you mean that he hath only
concerning matters of faith, the subject in question,
prescribed in general that we are to hear the church,
and left it to the church to determine what particulars
we are to believe, the church being nothing else but an
aggregation of believers: this in effect is to say, he
hath left it to all believers to determine what particulars
they are to believe. Besides, it is so apparently false,
that 1 wonder how you could content yourself, or think
we should be contented, with a bare saying, without
any show or pretence of proof.

1 43. As for Dr. Potter's objection against this argu-
ment, "That as well you might infer, that Chris-
tians must have all one king, because the Jews had
so;" for aught I can perceive, notwithstanding any
thing answered by you, it may stand still in force ;
though the truth is, it is urged by him, not against the
infallibility, but the monarchy of the church. For
whereas you say, the disparity is very clear : he that
should urge this argument for one monarch over the
whole world, would say that this is to deny the con-
clusion, and reply unto you, that there is disparity as
matters are now ordered, but that there should not be
so : for that there was no more reason to believe that
the ecclesiastical government of the Jews was a pattern
for the ecclesiastical government of Christians, than
the civil of the Jews for the civil of the Christians. He
would tell you, that the church of Christ, and all

CHILLINGWORTH, VOL. I. S

258 Scripture the only Rule p.t. ch. ii.

Christian commonwealths and kingdoms, are one and
the same thing : and therefore he sees no reason why
the synagogue should be a type and figure of the
church, and not of the commonwealth. He would tell
you, that as the church succeeded the Jewish synagogue,
so Christian princes should succeed the Jewish magis-
trates ; that is, the temporal governors of the church
should be Christians. He would tell you, that as the
church is compared to a house, a kingdom, an army,
a body, so all distinct kingdoms might and should be
one army, one family, &c., and that it is not so, is the
thing he complains of. And therefore you ought not
to think it enough to say, it is not so ; but you should
shew why it should not be so ; and why this argument
will not follow, The Jews had one king, therefore all
Christians ought to have ; as well as this. The Jews
had one high priest over them all, therefore all Chris-
tians also ought to have. He might tell you, moreover,
that the church may have one Master, one General,
one Head, one King, and yet he not be the pope, but
Christ. He might tell you, that you beg the question,
in saying without proof that it is necessary to salvation
that all (whether Christians or churches) have recourse
to one church, if you mean by one church one parti-
cular church which is to govern and direct all others ;
and that imless you mean so, you say nothing to the
purpose. And besides, he might tell you, and that
very truly, that it may seem altogether as available for
the temporal good of Christians to be under one tem-
poral prince, or commonwealth, as for their salvation
to be subordinate to one visible head : I say, as neces-
sary, both for the prevention of the effusion of the
blood of Christians by Christians, and for the defence
of Christendom from the hostile invasions of Turks and
pagans. And from all this he might infer, that though

ANSWEE. whereby to judge of Controversies, S59

now, by the fault of men, there were in several king-
doms several laws, governments, and powers ; yet that
it were much more expedient that there were but one :
nay, not only expedient, but necessary, if once your
ground be settled for a general rule — that what kind
of government the Jews had, that the Christians must
have. And if you limit the generality of this propo-
sition, and frame the argument thus ; What kind of
ecclesiastical government the Jews had, that the Chris-
tians must have : but they were governed by one high
priest, therefore these must be so : he will say, that
the first proposition of this syllogism is altogether as
doubtful as the conclusion ; and therefore neither fit
nor sufficient to prove it, until itself be proved. And
then besides, that there is as great reason to believe
this : That what kind of civil government the Jews had,
that the Christians must have. And so Dr. Potter's
objection remains still unanswered : That there is as
much reason to conclude a necessity of one king over
all Christian kingdoms, from the Jews having one king;
as one bishop over all churches, from their being under
one high priest.

144. Ad §. 24, Neither is this discourse confirmed by
^Irenaeus at all, whether by this discourse you mean that
immediately foregoing, of the analogy between the church
and the synagogue, to which this speech of Irenaeus
alleged here by you is utterly and plainly impertinent ;
or whether by this discourse you mean, (as I think you
do,) not your discourse, but your conclusion which you
discourse on ; that is, that " your church is the infal-
lible judge in controversies." For neither hath Irenaeus
one syllable to this purpose, neither can it be deduced
out of what he says, with any colour of consequence.
For, first in saying, " What if the apostles had not left
a Irenaeus, 1. 3. c. 3.

260 Scripture the only Rule p. i. ch. ii.

scripture, ought we not to have followed the order of
tradition ?" and in saying, " That to this order many-
nations yield assent, who believe in Christ, having sal-
vation written in their hearts by the Spirit of God,
without letters or ink, and diligently keeping ancient
tradition :" doth he not plainly shew, that the tradition
he speaks of is nothing else but the very same that is
written ; nothing but to believe in Christ ? To which,
whether scripture alone, to them that believe it, be not
a sufficient guide, I leave it to you to judge. And are
not his words just as if a man should say, If God had
not given us the light of the sun, we must have made
use of candles and torches : if we had no eyes, we must
have felt out our way : if we had no legs, we must have
used crutches. And doth not this in effect import,
that while we have the sun, we need no candles ?
While we have our eyes, we need not feel out our way ?
While we enjoy our legs, we need not crutches ? And,
by like reason, Irenaeus in saying, '* If we had no
scripture, we must have followed tradition ; and they
that have none, do well to do so ;" doth he not plainly
import, that to them that have scripture and believe it,
tradition is unnecessary? which could not be, if the
scripture did not contain evidently the whole tradition.
Which whether Irenaeus believed or no, these words of
his may inform you : N^on enim per alios &;c. " We
have received the disposition of our salvation from
no others, but from them by whom the gospel came
unto us. Which gospel truly the apostles first preached,
and afterwards by the will of God delivered in writing
to us, to be the pillar and foundation of our faith."
Upon which place Bellarmine's two observations, and
his acknowledgment ensuing upon them, are very con-
siderable, and, as I conceive, as home to my purpose
as I could wish them. His first notandum is, " That

ANSWER. whereby to judge of Controversies. 261

in the Christian doctrine some things are simply neces-
sary for the salvation of all men ; as the knowledge of
the articles of the Apostles' Creed ; and besides, the
knowledge of the Ten Commandments, and some of
the sacraments. Other things are not so necessary
but that a man may be saved without the explicit
knowledge and belief and profession of them." His
second note is, " That those things which were simply
necessary the apostles were wont to preach to all men ;
but of other things not all to all, but some things to
all ; to wit, those things which were profitable for all,
other things only to prelates and priests." These
things premised, he acknowledgeth, " That all these
things were written by the apostles which are necessary
for all, and which they were wont to preach to all ;
but that other things were not all written ; and there-
fore, when Irenaeus says, that the apostles wrote what
they preached in the world, it is true," saith he, ** and
not against traditions, because they preached not to the
people all things, but only those* things which were
necessary and profitable for them."

145. So that at the most you can infer from hence
but only a suppositive necessity of having an infallible
guide, and that grounded upon a false supposition, in
case we had no scripture ; but an absolute necessity
hereof, and to them who have and believe the scripture,
which is your assumption, cannot with any colour from
hence be concluded, but rather the contrary.

146. Neither because, as he says, it was '* then easy
to receive the truth from God's church," then in the
age next after the apostles, then when all the ancient
and apostolic churches were at an agreement about the
fundamentals of faith, will it therefore follow, that
now, one thousand six hundred years after, when the
ancient churches are divided almost into as many

s 3

262 Scripture the only Rule p. i. ch. ii.

religions as there are churches, every one being the
church to itself, and heretical to all other, that it is as
easy, but extremely difficult, or rather impossible, to
find the church first independently of the true doctrine,
and then to find the truth by the church ?

147. As for the last clause of the sentence, it will
not any whit advantage, but rather prejudice your
assertion. Neither will I seek to avoid the pressure
of it, by saying that he speaks of " small questions,"
and therefore not of questions touching things neces-
sary to salvation, which can hardly be called small
questions ; but I will favour you so far as to suppose,
that saying this of small questions, it is probable he
would have said it much more of the great ; but I will
answer that which is most certain and evident, and
which I am confident you yourself, were you as impu-
dent as I believe you modest, would not deny, that the
ancient apostolic churches are not now as they were in
Irenaeus's time ; then they were all at unity about
matters of faith, which unity was a good assurance
that what they so agreed in came from some one com-
mon fountain, and that no other than of apostolic
preaching. And this is the very ground of Tertullian's
so often mistaken Prescription against Heretics : Va-
riasse dehuerat error ecclesiarum ; quod autem apud
multos unum est^ non est erratum sed traditum : " If
the churches had erred, they could not but have varied ;
but that which is among so many came not by error
but tradition." But now the case is altered, and the
mischief is, that these ancient churches are divided
among themselves ; and if we have recourse to them,
one of them will say, this is the way to heaven, another
that. So that now, in place of receiving from them
certain and clear truths, we must expect nothing but
certain and clear contradictions.

ANSWER. whereby to judge of Controversies, 263

148. Neither will the " apostles' depositing with the
church all things belonging to the truth," be any proof
that the church shall certainly keep this depositum
entire and sincere, without adding to it or taking from
it ; for this whole depositum was committed to every
particular church, nay, to every particular man which
the apostles converted. And yet no man, I think, will
say, that there was any certainty that it should be
kept whole and inviolate by every man and every
church. It is apparent out of scripture it was com-
mitted to Timothy, and by him consigned to other
faithful men ; and yet St. Paul thought it not super-
fluous earnestly to exhort him to the careful keeping
of it: which exhortation you must grant had been
vain and superfluous, if the not keeping had been im-
possible. And therefore though Irenaeus says, "the
apostles fully deposited in the church all truth," yet he
says not, neither can we infer from what he says, that
the church should always infallibly keep this deposi-
tum entire, without the loss of any truth, and sincere,
without the mixture of any falsehood.

149. Ad J. 25. But you proceed and tell us, " that
besides all this, the doctrine of protestants is destruc-
tive of itself. For either they have certain and infal-
lible means not to err in interpreting, or not. If not,
scripture to them cannot be a sufficient ground for in-
fallible faith : if they have, and so cannot err in inter-
preting scripture, then they are able with infallibility
to hear and determine all controversies of faith ; and
so they may be, and are, judges of controversies, al-
though they use the scripture as a rule. And thus
against their own doctrine they constitute another
judge of controversies beside scripture alone." And
may not we with as much reason substitute church
and papists instead of scripture and protestants, and

s 4

264 Scripture the only Rule p. i. ch. ii.

say unto you, besides all this, the doctrine of papists
is destructive of itself ? For either they have certain
and infallible means not to err in the choice of the
church and interpreting her decrees, or they have not ;
if not, then the church to them cannot be a sufficient
(but merely a fantastical) ground for infallible faith,
nor a meet judge of controversies : (for unless I be
infallibly sure that the church is infallible, how can I
be, upon her authority, infallibly sure that any thing
she says is infallible ?) if they have certain infallible
means, and so cannot err in the choice of their church,
and interpreting her decrees, then they are able vrith
infallibility to hear, examine, and determine all contro-
versies of faith, although they pretend to make the
church their guide. And thus, against their own doc-
trine, they constitute another judge of controversies
besides the church alone. Nay, every one makes him-
self a chooser of his ovi^n religion, and of his ovrn sense
of the church's decrees, which very thing in protestants
they so highly condemn ; and so in judging others
condemn themselves.

150. Neither in saying thus have I only cried quit-
tance with you ; but that you may see how much you
are in my debt, I will shew unto you, that for your
sophism against our way I have given you a demon-
stration against yours. First, I say, your argument
against us is a transparent fallacy. The first part of
it lies thus : Protestants have no means to interpret,
without error, obscure and ambiguous places of scrip-
ture ; therefore plain places of scripture cannot be to
them a sufficient ground of faith. But though we
pretend not to certain means of not erring in inter-
preting all scripture, particularly such places as are
obscure and ambiguous, yet this methinks should be
no impediment, but that we may have certain means

ANSWER. whereby to Judge of Controversies. 265

of not erring in and about the sense of those places
which are so plain and clear that they need no inter-
preters ; and in such we say our faith is contained.
If you ask me, how I can be sure that I know the true
meaning of these places ? I ask you again, can you be
sure that you understand what I or any man else
says ? They that heard our Saviour and the apostles
preach, could they have sufficient assurance that they
understood at any time what they would have them
do ? If not, to what end did they hear them ? If they
could, why may we not be as well assured that we
understand sufficiently what we conceive plain in their
writings ?

151. Again, I pray tell us, whether you do certainly
know the sense of these scriptures with which you
pretend you are led to the knowledge of your church ?
If you do not, how know you that there is any church
infallible, and that these are the notes of it, and that
this is the church that hath these notes ? If you do,
then give us leave to have the same means and the
same abilities to know other plain places which you
have to know these. For if all scripture be obscure,
how come you to know the sense of these places ? If
some places of it be plain, why should we stay here ?

152. And now to come to the other part of your
dilemma. In saying, " If they have certain means,
and so cannot err," methinks you forget yourself very
much, and seem to make no difference between having
certain means to do a thing, and the actual doing of
it. As if you should conclude, because all men have
certain means of salvation, therefore all men certainly
must be saved, and cannot do otherwise ; as if whoso-
ever had a horse must presently get up and ride ; who-
soever had means to find out a way, could not neglect
those means and so mistake it. God be thanked that

9,66 Scripture the only Rule p. i. ch. ii.

we have sufficient means to be certain enough of the
truth of our faith ! But the privilege of not being in
possibility of erring, that vre challenge not, because vre
have as little reason as you to do so ; and you have
none at all. If you ask, seeing vre may possibly err,
how can we be assured we do not ? I ask you again,
seeing your eyesight may deceive you, how can you
be sure you see the sun when you do see it ? Perhaps
you may be in a dream, and perhaps you, and all the
men in the world, have been so, when they thought
they were awake, and then only awake when they
thought they dreamt. But this I am sure of, as sure
as that God is good, that he will require no impossi-
bilities of us ; not an infallible, nor a certainly un-
erring belief, unless he hath given us certain means to
avoid error ; and if we use those which we have, he
will never require of us that we use that which we
have not.

153. Now from this mistaken ground. That it is
all one to have means of avoiding error, and to be in
no danger nor possibility of error, you infer upon us
an absurd conclusion, " that we make ourselves able
to determine controversies of faith with infallibility,
and judges of controversies." For the latter part of
this inference, we acknowledge and embrace it : we do
make ourselves judges of controversies ; that is, we do
make use of our own understanding in the choice of
our religion. But this, if it be a crime, is common to
us with you (as I have proved above) ; and the differ-
ence is, not that we are choosers and you not choosers,
but that we, as we conceive, choose wisely ; but you,
being wilfully blind, choose to follow those that are so
too, not remembering what our Saviour hath told you,
when the blind lead the blind ^ both shall fall into the
ditch. But then again I must tell you, you have done

ANSWER. whereby to judge of Controversies, 367

ill to confound together " judges " and " infallible
judges ;" unless you will say, either that we have no
judges in our courts of civil judicature, or that they
are all infallible.

154. Thus have we cast off your dilemma, and
broken both the horns of it. But now my retortion
lies heavy upon you, and will not be turned off. For
first you content not yourselves with a moral certainty
of the things you believe, nor with such a degree of
assurance of them as is sufficient to produce obedience
to the condition of the new covenant, which is all that
we require. God's Spirit, if he please, may work more,
a certainty of adherence beyond a certainty of evi-
dence : but neither God doth, nor man may, require of
us, as our duty, to give a greater assent to the conclu-
sion than the premises deserve ; to build an infallible
faith upon motives that are only highly credible and
not infallible, as it were a great and heavy building
upon a foundation that hath not strength proportion-
able. But though God require not of us such unrea-
sonable things, you do ; and tell men they cannot be
saved, unless they believe your proposals with an in-
fallible faith. To which end they must believe also
your propounder, your church, to be simply infallible.
Now how is it possible for them to give a rational
assent to the church's infallibility, unless they have
some infallible means to know that she is infallible ?
Neither can they infallibly know the infallibility of
this means but by some other, and so on for ever;
unless they can dig so deep as to come at length to
the rock ; that is, to settle all upon something evident
of itself, which is not so much as pretended. But the
last resolution of all is into motives, which indeed,
upon examination, will scarce appear probable, but are
not so much as vouched to be any more than very

Scripture the only Rule p. i. ch. ii»

credible. For example, if I ask you, Why you do be-
lieve transubstantiation ; what can you answer but
because it is a revelation of the prime verity? I de-
mand again, How can you assure yourself or me of
that, being ready to embrace it, if it may appear to be
so ? And what can you say, but that you know it to
be so, because the church says so, which is infallible ?
If I ask, what mean you by your church? you can
tell me nothing but the company of Christians which
adhere to the pope. I demand then ^further, why
should I believe this company to be the infallible pro-
pounder of Divine revelation ? And then you tell me,
that there are many motives to induce a man to this
belief. But are these motives, lastly, infallible ? No,
say you, but very credible. Well, let them pass for
such, because now we have not leisure to examine
them. Yet methinks, seeing the motives to believe the
church's infallibility are only very credible, it should
also be but as credible that your church is infallible ;
and as credible, and no more, perhaps somewhat less,
that her proposals, particularly transubstantiation, are
Divine revelations. And methinks you should require
only a moral and modest assent to them, and not a
Divine, as you call it, and infallible faith. But then
of these motives to the church's infallibility, I hope
you will give us leave to consider and judge whether
they be indeed motives, and sufficient ; or whether
they be not motives at all, or not sufficient ; or whether
these motives or inducements to your church be not
impeached, and opposed with compulsives and enforce-
ments from it ; or lastly, whether these motives which
you use be not indeed only motives to Christianity,
and not to popery ; give me leave, for distinction-sake,
to call your religion so. If we may not judge of these
b lastly Oxf,

ANSWER. whereby to judge of Co7itroversies, 269

things, how can my judgment be moved with that
which comes not within its cognizance ? If I may, then
at least I am to be a judge of all these controversies :
1. Whether every one of these motives be indeed a mo-
tive to any church ? 2. If to some, whether to yours ?

3. If to yours, whether sufficient or insufficient?

4. Whether other societies have not as many and as
great motives to draw me to them ? 5. Whether I
have not greater reason to believe you do err, than that
you cannot ? And now, sir, I pray let me trouble you
with a few more questions. Am I a sufficient judge of
these controversies or no ? If of these, why shall I
stay here, why not of others, why not of all ? Nay,
doth not the true examining of these few contain and
lay upon me the examination of all? What other mo-
tives to your church have you, but your notes of it ?
Bellarmine gives some fourteen or fifteen. And one
of these fifteen contains in it the examination of all
controversies ; and not only so, but of all uncontro-
verted doctrines. For how shall I, or can I, "know the
church of Rome's conformity with the ancient church,"
unless I know first what the ancient church did hold,
and then what the church of Rome doth hold ? And,
lastly, whether they be conformable, or if in my judg-
ment they seem not conformable, I am then to think
the church of Rome not to be the church, for want of
the note, which she pretends is proper and perpetual
to it ? So that for aught I can see, judges we are and
must be of all sides, every one for himself, and God for
us all.

155. Ad §. 26. I answer ; This assertion, that " scrip-
ture alone is judge of all controversies in faith," if it
be taken properly, is neither a fundamental nor unfun-
damental point of faith, nor no point of faith at all, but
a plain falsehood. It is not a judge of controversies.

^70 Scripture the only Rule p. i. ch. ii.

but a rule to judge them by ; and that not an absolutely
perfect rule, but as perfect as a written rule can be ;
which must always need something else, which is either
evidently true, or evidently credible, to give attestation
to it, and that in this case is universal tradition. So
that universal tradition is the rule to judge all contro-
versies by. But then, because nothing besides scripture
comes to us with as full a stream of tradition as scrip-
ture, scripture alone, and no unwritten doctrine, nor
no infallibility of any church, having attestation from
tradition truly universal ; for this reason we conceive,
as the apostles' persons, while they were living, were
the only judges of controversies, so their writings, now
they are dead, are the only rule for us to judge them
by ; there being nothing unwritten, which can go in
upon half so fair cards for the title of apostolic tradition
as these things, which by the confession of both sides
are not so ; I .mean, the doctrine of the millenaries, and
of the necessity of the eucharist for infants.

156. Yet when we say the scripture is the only rule
to judge all controversies by, methinks you should
easily conceive, that we would be understood of all those
that are possible to be judged by scripture, and of those
that arise among such as believe the scripture. For,
if I had a controversy with an atheist, whether there
was a God or no, I would not say that the scripture
were a rule to judge this by ; seeing that, doubting
whether there be a God or no, he must needs doubt
whether the scripture be the word of God ; or if he
does not, he grants the question, and is not the man
we speak of. So, likewise, if I had a controversy
about the truth of Christ with a Jew, it would be
vainly done of me, should I press him with the au-
thority of the New Testament, which he believes not,
till out of some principles, common to us both, I had

ANSWER. whereby to judge of Controversies. 271

persuaded him that it is the word of God. The New
Testament, therefore, while he remains a ^ew, would
not be a fit rule to decide this controversy, inasmuch
as that which is doubted of itself is not fit to determine
other doubts. So likewise, if there were any that
believed the Christian religion ^, and yet believed not
the Bible to be the word of God, though they believed
the matter of it to be true (which is no impossible
supposition ; for I may believe a book of St. Austin's
to contain nothing but the truth of God, and yet not to
have been inspired by God himself) ; against such men
therefore there were no disputing out of the Bible,
because nothing in question can be a proof to itself.
When therefore we say, scripture is a sufficient means
to determine all controversies, we say not this either to
Atheists, Jews, Turks, or such Christians (if there be
any such) as believe not scripture to be the word of
God : but among such men only as are already agreed
upon this, that " the scripture is the word of God," we
say, all controversies that arise about faith are either
not at all decidable, and consequently not necessary to
be believed one way or other, or they may be deter-
mined by scripture. In a word, that all things neces-
sary to be believed are evidently contained in scripture,
and what is not there evidently contained cannot be
necessary to be believed. And our reason hereof is
convincing, because nothing can challenge our belief
but what hath descended to us from Christ by original
and universal tradition. Now nothing but scripture
hath thus descended to us, therefore nothing but scrip-
ture can challenge our belief. Now then, to come up
closer to you, and to answer to your question, not as you
put it, but as you should have put it ; I say, that this
position, " Scripture alone is the rule whereby they
^ believed Christian religion Oxf, Land.

272 Scripture the only Rule p. i. ch. [i.

which believe it to be God's word are to judge all con-
troversies in faith," is no fundamental point; though
not for your reasons : for, your first and strongest
reason, you see, is plainly voided and cut off by my
stating of the question as I have done, and supposing
in it that the parties at variance are agreed about this,
that the scripture is the word of God ; and consequently
that this is none of their controversies. To your
second, that " controversies cannot be ended without
some living authority ;" we have said already, that
necessary controversies may be and are decided : and
if they be not ended, this is not through defect of the
rule, but through the default of men. And for those
that cannot thus be ended, it is not necessary they
should be ended ; for if God did require the ending of
them, he would have provided some certain means for
the ending of them. And to your third, I say, that
your pretence of using these means is but hypocritical ;
for you use them with prejudice, and with a settled
resolution not to believe any thing which these means
happily may suggest into you, if it any way cross your
preconceived persuasion of your church's infallibility.
You give not yourselves liberty of judgment in the use
of them, nor suffer yourselves to be led by them to the
truth, to which they would lead you, would you but be
as willing to believe this consequence — Our church
doth oppose scripture, therefore it doth err, therefore
it is not infallible ; as you are resolute to believe this —
The church is infallible, therefore it doth not err,
and therefore it doth not oppose scripture, though it
seem to do so never so plainly.

157. You pray, but it is not that God would bring
you to the true religion, but that he would confirm you
in your own. You confer places, but it is that you
may confirm or colour over with plausible disguises

ANSWER. whereby to judge of Controversies, 273

your erroneous doctrines ; not that you may judge of
them, and forsake them, if there be reason for it. You
consult the originals, but you regard them not when
they make against your doctrine or translation.

158. You add, not only the authority, but the infal-
libility, not of God's church, but of the Roman, a very
corrupt and degenerous part of it ; whereof Dr. Potter
never confessed, that it cannot err damnably : and
which, being a company made up of particular men,
can afford you no help, but the industry, learning, and
wit of private men ; and, that these helps may not
help you out of your error, tell you, that you must
make use of none of all these to discover any error in
the church, but only to maintain her impossibility of
erring. And, lastly. Dr. Potter assures himself, that
your doctrine and practices are damnable enough in
themselves ; only he hopes, (and spes est rei iiicertce
nomen,) he hopes, I say, that the truths which you
retain, especially the necessity of repentance and faith in
Christ, will be as an antidote to you against the errors
which you maintain ; and that your superstruction
may burn, yet they amongst you qui sequuntur Ahsa-
lonem in simplicitate cordis may be saved, yet so as by

fire. Yet his thinking so is no reason for you or me
to think so, unless you suppose him infallible; and if
you do, why do you write against him ?

159. Notwithstanding, though not for these reasons,
yet for others, I conceive this doctrine not fundamental ;
because if a man should believe Christian religion
wholly and entirely, and live according to it, such a
man, though he should not know or not believe the
scripture to be a rule of faith, no, nor to be the word
of God, my opinion is, he may be saved ; and my rea-
son is, because he performs the entire condition of the
new covenant, which is, that we believe the matter of

CHILLINGWOETH. VOX. T. T

274 Scripture the only Rule p. i. ch. if.

the gospel, and not that it is contained in these or these
books. So that the books of scripture are not so much
the objects of our faith, as the instruments of conveying
it to our understanding ; and not so much of the being
of the Christian doctrine as requisite to the well-being
of it. Irena^us tells us (as M. K. acknowledgeth) of
some barbarous nations that " believed the doctrines of
Christ, and yet believed not the scripture to be the
word of God ; for they never heard of it, and faith
comes by hearing." But these barbarous people might
be saved : therefore men might be saved without
believing the scripture to be the word of God ; much
more without believing it to be a rule, and a perfect
rule of faith. Neither doubt I, but if the books of
scripture had been proposed to them by the other parts
of the church, where they had been before received,
and had been doubted of, or even rejected by those
barbarous nations, but still by the bare belief and
practice of Christianity they might be saved ; God
requiring of us, under pain of damnation, only to believe
the verities therein contained, and not the Divine au-
thority of the books wherein they are contained. Not
but that it were now very strange and unreasonable, if
a man should believe the matter of these books, and
not the authority of the books : and therefore, if a man
should profess the not-believing of these, I should have
reason to fear he did not believe that. But there is
not always an equal necessity for the belief of those
things, for the belief whereof there is an equal reason.
We have, I believe, as great reason to believe there was
such a man as Henry the Eighth, king of England, as
that Jesus Christ suffered under Pontius Pilate : yet
this is necessary to be believed, and that is not so. So
that if any man should doubt of or disbelieve that, it
were most unreasonably done of him, yet it were no

ANSWER. 7v hereby to judge of Controversies. 275

mortal sin, nor no sin at all ; God having no where
commanded men under pain of damnation to believe all
which reason induceth them to believe. Therefore, as an
executor that should perform the whole will of the dead
should fully satisfy the law, though he did not believe
that parchment to be his written will which indeed is
so ; so I believe, that he who believes all the particular
doctrines which integrate Christianity, and lives ac-
cording to them, should be saved, though he neither
believed nor knew that the Gospels were written by
the evangelists, or the Epistles by the apostles.

160. This discourse, whether it be rational and con-
cluding or no, I submit to better judgment ; but sure
I am, that the corollary which you draw from this
position, that this point is not fundamental, is very in-
consequent ; that is, that we are uncertain of the truth
of it, because we say, the whole church, much more
particular churches and private men, may err in points
not fundamental. A pretty sophism, depending upon
this principle ; that whosoever possibly may err, he
cannot be certain that he doth not err ! And upon this
ground, what shall hinder me from concluding, that
seeing you also hold, that neither particular churches
nor private men are infallible even in fundamentals,
that even the fundamentals of Christianity remain to
you uncertain ? A judge may possibly err in judgment;
can he therefore never have assurance that he hath
judged right? A traveller may possibly mistake his
way ; must I therefore be doubtful whether I am in
the right way from my hall to my chamber ? Or can
our London carrier have no certainty, in the middle of
the day, when he is sober and in his wits, that he is in
the way to London ? These, you see, are right worthy
consequences, and yet they are as like your own, as an
egg to an egg, or milk to milk.

T 2

276 Scripture the only Rule p. i. ch. ii.

161. And " for the selfsame reason," you say, " we
are not certain that the church is not judge of contro-
versies." But now this selfsame appears to be no
reason ; and therefore, for all this, we may be certain
enough that the church is no judge of controversies.
The ground of this sophism is very like the former,
viz. that we can be certain of the falsehood of no pro-
positions but these only, which are damnable errors.
But I pray, good sir, give me your opinion of these :
the snow is black — the fire is cold — that M. Knot is
archbishop of Toledo — that the whole is not greater
than a part of the whole — that twice two make not
four : in your opinion, good sir, are these damnable
heresies, or, because they are not so, have we no cer-
tainty of the falsehood of them ? I beseech you, sir,
to consider seriously with what strange captions you
have gone about to delude your king and your country;
and if you be convinced they are so, give glory to
God, and let the world know it by your deserting
that religion which stands upon such deceitful founda-
tions.

162!. " Besides," you say, " among public conclu-
sions defended in Oxford the year 1633, to the ques-
tions, ' whether the church have authority to deter-
mine controversies of faith,' and ' to interpret holy
scripture?' the answer to both is affirmative." But
what now if I should tell you, that in the year 1632,
among public conclusions defended in Doway, one
was, that God predeterminates men to all their ac-
tions, good, bad, and indifferent ? will you think your-
self obliged to be of this opinion ? If you will, say
so : if not, do as you would be done by. Again, me-
thinks so subtile a man as you are should easily appre-
hend a wide difference between authority to do a
thing, and infallibility in doing it; and again, be-

ANSWER. whereby to judge of Controversies, 277

tween a conditional infallibility and an absolute. The
former, the doctor, together with the article of the
church of England, attributeth to the church, nay to
particular churches, and I subscribe to his opinion ;
that is, an authority of determining controversies of
faith according to plain and evident scripture and uni-
versal tradition, and infallibility while they proceed
according to this rule. As if there should arise an
heretic that should call in question Christ's passion
and resurrection, the chuixh had authority to decide
this controversy, and infallible direction how to do it,
and to excommunicate this man if he should persist
in error. I hope you will not deny but that the
judges have authority to determine criminal and civil
controversies, and yet I hope you will not say that
they are absolutely infallible in their determinations :
infallible while they proceed according to law, and if
they do so ; but not infallibly certain that they shall
ever do so. But that the church should be infallibly
assisted by God's Spirit to decide rightly all emergent
controversies, even such as might be held diversely of
divers men, salva compage fidei^ and that we might
be absolutely certain that the church should never fail
to decree the truth, whether she used means or no,
whether she proceed according to her rule or not ; or,
lastly, that we might be absolutely certain that she
should never fail to proceed according to her rule, this
the defender of these conclusions said not : and there-
fore said no more to your purpose than you have all
this while, that is, just nothing.

163. Ad §. 27. To the place of St. Austin alleged
in this paragraph, I answer, first, that in many things
you will not be tried by St. Austin's judgment, nor
submit to his authority ; not concerning appeals to
Rome ; not concerning transubstantiation ; not touch-

T 3

^78 Scripture the only Rule p. i. ch. ii.

ing the use and worshipping of images ; not concerning
the state of saints' souls before the day of judgment ;
not touching the Virgin Mary's freedom from actual
and original sin ; not touching the necessity of the
eucharist for infants ; not touching the damning in-
fants to hell that die without baptism ; not touching
the knowledge of saints departed ; not touching pur-
gatory ; not touching the fallibility of councils, even
general councils ; not touching perfection and perspi-
cuity in scriptures in matters necessary to salvation ;
not touching auricular confession ; not touching the
half-communion ; not touching prayers in an unknown
tongue : in these things, I say, you will not stand to
St. Austin's judgment, and therefore can with no rea-
son or equity require us to do so in this matter. To
St. Austin in heat of disputation against the Donatists,
and ransacking all places for arguments against them,
we oppose St. Austin out of this heat, delivering the
doctrine of Christianity calmly and moderately, where
he says, In Us quce aperte posita sunt in sacris scrip-
turis, omnia ea reperiuntur quce continent fidem^ mo-
resque viiwndi. S. We say, he speaks not of the
Roman, but the catholic church, of far greater extent,
and therefore of far greater credit and authority than
the Roman church. 4. He speaks of a point not ex-
pressed, but yet not contradicted by scripture. 5. He
says not, that Christ hath recommended the church to
us for " an infallible deliner of all emergent contro-
versies," but for a " credible witness of ancient tradi-
tion." Whosoever therefore refuseth to follow the
practice of the church, (understand of all places and
ages,) though he be thought to resist our Saviour,
what is that to us, who cast off no practices of the
church but such as are evidently postnate to the time
of the apostles, and plainly contrary to the practice of

ANSWER. whereby to judge of Controversies. 279

former and purer times. Lastly, it is evident, and
even to impudence itself undeniable, that upon this
ground, " of believing all things taught by the present
church as taught by Christ," error was held ; for ex-
ample, " the necessity of the eucharist for infants," and
that in St. Austin's time, and that by St. Austin him-
self : and therefore w^ithout controversy this is no cer-
tain ground for truth, vrhich may support falsehood as
vrell as truth.

164. To the argument wherewith you conclude, I
answer, that though the visible church shall always
without fail propose so much of God's revelation as is
sufficient to bring men to heaven, for otherwise it will
not be the visible church ; yet it may sometimes add
to this revelation things superfluous, nay hurtful, nay
in themselves damnable, though not unpardonable ;
and sometimes take from it things very expedient and
profitable : and therefore it is possible, without sin, to
resist in some things the visible church of Christ. But
you press us further, and demand, " what visible church
was extant when Luther began, whether it were the
Roman or protestant church ?" As if it must of neces-
sity either be protestant or Roman ; or Roman of ne-
cessity if it were not protestant. Yet this is the most
usual fallacy of all your disputers, by some specious
arguments to persuade weak men that the church of
protestants cannot be the true church ; and thence to
infer, that without doubt it must be the Roman. But
why may not the Roman be content to be a part of it,
and the Grecian another? And if one must be the
whole, why not the Greek church as well as the
Roman? there being not one note of your church
which agrees not to her as well as to your own ; un-
less it be that she is poor and oppressed by the Turk,
and you are in glory and splendour.

T 4

280 Scripture the only Rule Sfc. p. i. ch. ti.

165. Neither is it so easy to be determined as you
pretend, " that Luther and other protestants opposed
the whole visible church in matters of faith ;" neither
is it so evident, that " the visible church may not fall
into such a state vrherein she may be justly opposed."
And. lastly, for calling the distinction of points into
fundamental and not fundamental an evasion, I be-
lieve you will find it easier to call it so than to prove it
so. But that shall be the issue of the controversy in
the next chapter.

CHAP. III. Charity Main famed hy Catholics,

CHAPTER III.

That the distinction of points fundamental and not funda-
mental is neither pertinent nor true in our present contro-
versy ; and that the catholic visible church cannot err in
either kind of the said points,

" 1 HIS distinction is abused by protestants to many
purposes of theirs ; and therefore if it be either untrue
or impertinent, (as they understand and apply it,) the
whole edifice built thereon must be ruinous and false.
For if you object their bitter and continued discords
in matters of faith, without any means of agreement ;
they instantly tell you, (as Charity Mistaken plainly
shews,) that they differ only in points not fundamental.
If you convince them, even by their own confessions,
that the ancient fathers taught divers points held by
the Roman church against protestants ; they reply,
that those fathers may nevertheless be saved, because
those errors were not fundamental. If you will them
to remember, that Christ must alway have a visible
church on earth, with administration of sacraments and
succession of pastors, and that when Luther appeared
there was no church distinct from the Roman, whose
communion and doctrine Luther then forsook, and for
that cause must be guilty of schism and heresy ; they
have an answer, (such as it is,) that the catholic church
cannot perish, yet may err in points not fundamen-
tal, and therefore Luther and other protestants were
obliged to forsake her for such errors under pain of
damnation : as if, forsooth, it were damnable to hold
an error not fundamental nor damnable. If you wonder
how they can teach that both catholics and protestants

S8S Charity Maintained by Catholics. part i.

may be saved in their several professions ; they salve
this contradiction by saying, that we both agree in all
fundamental points of faith, which is enough for sal-
vation. And yet, which is prodigiously strange, they
could never be induced to give a catalogue what points
in particular be fundamental, but only by some gene-
ral description, or by referring us to the Apostles'
Creed, without determining what points therein be
fundamental or not fundamental for the matter ; and
in what sense they be or be not such : and yet con-
cerning the meaning of divers points contained in or
reduced to the Creed, they differ both from us and
among themselves. And indeed it being impossible
for them to exhibit any such catalogue, the said dis-
tinction of points, although it were pertinent and true,
cannot serve them to any purpose, but still they must
remain uncertain whether or no they disagree from
one another, from the ancient fathers, and from the
catholic church, in points fundamental ; which is to
say, they have no certainty whether they enjoy the
substance of Christian faith, without which they can-
not hope to be saved. But of this more hereafter.

2. " And to the end that what shall be said con-
cerning this distinction may be better understood, we
are to observe, that there be two precepts which con-
cern the virtue of faith, or our obligation to believe
Divine truths. The one is by divines called affirma-
tive, whereby we are obliged to have a positive explicit
belief of some chief articles of Christian faith ; the
other is termed negative, which strictly binds us not to
disbelieve, that is, not to believe the contrary of any one
point sufficiently represented to our understandings, as
revealed or spoken by Almighty God. The said af-
firmative precept (according to the nature of such
commands) enjoins some act to be performed, but not

CHAP. III. Charity Maintained by Catholics, 283

at all times, nor doth it equally bind all sorts of per-
sons in respect of all objects to be believed. For oh-
jects ; we grant that some are more necessary to be
explicitly and severally believed than other; either
because they are in themselves more great and weighty,
or else in regard they instruct us in some necessary
Christian duty towards God, ourselves, or our neigh-
bour. For persons; no doubt but some are obliged
to know distinctly more than others, by reason of their
office, vocation, capacity, or the like. For times ; we
are not obliged to be still in act of exercising acts of
faith, but according as several occasions permit or re-
quire. The second kind of precept, called negative,
doth (according to the nature of all such commands)
oblige universally all persons, in respect of all objects ;
and at all times, semper et pro semper, as divines speak.
This general doctrine will be more clear by examples :
I am not obliged to be always helping my neighbour,
because the affirmative precept of charity bindeth only
in some particular cases ; but I am always bound, by
a negative precept, never to do him any hurt or wrong.
I am not always bound to utter what I know to be
true ; yet I am obliged never to speak any one least
untruth against my knowledge. And (to come to our
present purpose) there is no affirmative precept, com-
manding us to be at all times actually believing any
one or all articles of faith ; but we are obliged never
to exercise any act against any one truth known to be
revealed. All sorts of persons are not bound explicitly
and distinctly to know all things testified by God either
in scripture or otherwise ; but every one is obliged not
to believe the contrary of any one point known to be
testified by God. For that were in fact to affirm, that
God could be deceived, or would deceive ; which were
to overthrow the whole certainty of our faith wherein

284 Charity Maintained hy Catholics. part i.

the thing most principal is not the point which we
believe, which divines call the material object, but the
chiefest is the motive for which we believe, to wit,
Almighty God's infallible revelation or authority, which
they term the formal object of our faith. In two
senses, therefore, and with a double relation, points of
faith may be called fundamental, and necessary to sal-
vation : the one is taken with reference to the affirma-
tive precept, when the points are of such quality that
there is obligation to know and believe them explicitly
and severally. In this sense we grant that there is
difference betwixt points of faith, which Dr. Potter^ to
no purpose laboureth to prove against his adversary,
who in express words doth grant and explicate it^.
But the doctor thought good to dissemble the matter,
and not to say one pertinent word in defence of his
distinction, as it was impugned by Charity Mistaken,
and as it is wont to be applied by protestants. The
other sense, according to which points of faith may be
called fundamental, and necessary to salvation, with
reference to the negative precept of faith, is such, that
we cannot, without grievous sin and forfeiture of sal-
vation, disbelieve any one point, sufficiently propounded,
as revealed by Almighty God. And in this sense we
avouch that there is no distinction in points of faith,
as if to reject some must be damnable, and to reject
others, equally proposed as God's word, might stand
with salvation. Yea, the obligation of the negative
precept is far more strict than is that of the affirma-
tive, which God freely imposed and may freely release.
But it is impossible that he can dispense, or give leave
to disbelieve or deny what he affirmeth ; and in this
sense sin and damnation are more inseparable from
error in points not fundamental, than from ignorance in
^' Page 209. d Charity Mistaken, c. 8. p. 75.

CHAP. III. Charity Maintained by Catholics. S85

articles fundamental. All this I shew by an example,
which I wish to be particularly noted for the present,
and for divers other occasions hereafter. The Creed of
the Apostles contains divers fundamental points of faith,
as the Deity, trinity of persons, the incarnation, passion,
and resurrection of our Saviour Christ, &c. It contains
also some points, for their matter and nature in them-
selves not fundamental ; as under what judge our Sa-
viour suffered ; that he was buried ; the circumstance
of the time of his resurrection the third day, &c. But
yet nevertheless whosoever once knows that these points
are contained in the Apostles' Creed, the denial of them
is damnable, and is in that sense a fundamental error :
and this is the precise point of the present ques-
tion.

3. " And all that hitherto hath been said is so mani-
festly true, that no protestant or Christian, if he do but
understand the terms and state of the question, can
possibly deny it : insomuch, as I am amazed that men,
who otherwise are endued with excellent wits, should
so enslave themselves to their predecessors in protest-
antism, as still to harp on this distinction, and never
regard how impertinently and untruly it was employed
by them at first, to make all protestants seem to be of
one faith, because, forsooth, they agree in fundamental
points. For the difference amongst protestants consists
not in that some believe some points, of which others
are ignorant, or not bound expressly to know; (as the
distinction ought to be applied ;) but that some of them
disbelieve, and directly, wittingly, and willingly oppose
what others do believe to be testified by the word of
God, wherein there is no difference between points fun-
damental and not fundamental ; because, till points
fundamental be sufficiently proposed as revealed by God,
it is not against faith to reject them, or rather, without

286 Charity Maiiitained hy Catholics, part i.

sufficient proposition it is not possible prudently to be-
lieve them and the like is of points not fundamental,
which as soon as they come to be sufficiently propounded
as Divine truths, they can no more be denied than points
fundamental propounded after the same manner: neither
will it avail them to their other end, that for preserva-
tion of the church in being, it is sufficient that she do
not err in points fundamental. For if in the mean
time she maintain any one error against God's revela-
tion, be the thing in itself never so small, her error is
damnable, and destructive of salvation.

4. " But D. Potter forgetting to what purpose pro-
testants make use of their distinction, doth finally
overthrow it, and yields to as much as we can desire.
For, speaking of that measure^ and quantity of faith
without which none can be saved, he saith, ' It is enough
to believe some things by a virtual faith, or by a general,
and as it were a negative faith, whereby they are not
denied or contradicted.' Now our question is, in case
tliat Divine truths, although not fundamental, be de-
nied and contradicted ; and therefore, even according
to him, all such denial excludes salvation. After, he
speaks more plainly. 'It is true,' saith he, ' whatsoever*^
is revealed in scripture, or propounded by the church
out of scripture, is in some sense fundamental, in regard
of the divine authority of God and his word, by which
it is recommended ; that is, such as may not be denied or
contradicted without infidelity; such as every Christian
is bound, with humility and reverence, to believe, when-
soever the knowledge thereof is offered to him.' And
further, where ^ the revealed will or word of God is
sufficiently propounded, there he that opposeth is con-
vinced of error, and he who is thus convinced is a he-

e Page 2 11. f Page 212. g Page 250.

CHAP. III. Charity Malnfoined by Catholics, 287

retic, and heresy is a work of the flesh which exeludeth
from heaven [Gal. v. 20, 21.] : and hence it followeth,
that it is fundamental to a Christian's faith, and neces-
sary for his salvation, that he believe all revealed
truths of God, whereof he may be convinced that they
are from God.' Can any thing be spoken more clearly
or directly for us, that it is a fundamental error to deny
any one point, though never so small, if once it be suf-
ficiently propounded as a Divine truth, and that there
is in this sense no distinction betwixt points funda-
mental and not fundamental? And if any should
chance to imagine that it is against the foundation of
faith not to believe points fundamental, although they
be not sufficiently propounded, D. Potter doth not ad-
mit of this difference^ betwixt points fundamental and
not fundamental : for he teacheth, that ' sufficient pro-
position of revealed truth is required before a man can
be convinced ;' and for want of sufficient conviction, he
excuseth the disciples from heresy, although they be-
lieved not our Saviour's resurrection^, which is a very
fundamental point of faith. Thus then I argue out of
D.Potter s own confession; No error is damnable, unless
the contrary truth be sufficiently propounded as revealed
by God : every error is damnable, if the contrary truth
be sufficiently propounded as revealed by God : there-
fore all errors are alike for the general effect of damna-
tion, if the difference arise not from the manner of
being propounded. And what now is become of their
distinction ?

5. " I will therefore conclude with this argument :
according to all philosophy and divinity, the unity and
distinction of every thing followeth the nature and es-
sence thereof; and therefore if the nature and being

^ Page 246. i Ibid.

288 Charity Mmnta'med hy Catholics, part i.

of faith be not taken from the matter which a man be-
lieves, but from the motive for vrhich he believes, (which
is God's word or revelation,) we must likewise affirm,
that the unity and diversity of faith must be measured
by God's revelation, (which is alike for all objects,) and
not by the smallness or greatness of the matter which
we believe. Now, that the nature of faith is not taken
from the greatness or smallness of the things believed,
is manifest ; because otherwise one who believes only
fundamental points, and another, who together with
them doth also believe points not fundamental, should
have faith of different natures ; yea, there should be as
many differences of faith, as there are different points
which men believe, according to different cajjacities or
instructions, &c. ; all which consequences are absurd ;
and therefore we must say, that unity in faith doth not
depend upon points fundamental or not fundamental,
but upon God's revelation equally or unequally pro-
posed ; and protestants, pretending an unity only by
reason of their agreement in fundamental points, do in-
deed induce as great a multiplicity of faith as there is
multitude of different objects which are believed by
them ; and since they disagree in things equally re-
vealed by Almighty God, it is evident that they forsake
the very formal motive of faith, which is God's revela-
tion, and consequently lose all faith and unity there-
in.

6. " The first part of the title of this chapter, {' that
the distinction of points fundamental and not funda-
mental, in the sense of protestants, is both impertinent
and untrue,') being demonstrated, let us now come to
the second ; * that the church is infallible in all her de-
finitions, whether they concern points fundamental or
not fundamental.' And this I prove by these rea-
sons:

CHAP. III. Charity Maintained hy Catholics.

7. "It hath been shewed in the precedent chapter,
that the church is judge of controversies in religion ;
which she could not be, if she could err in any one
point ; as Dr. Potter would not deny, if he were once
persuaded that she is judge : because, if she could err
in some points, we could not rely upon her authority
and judgment in any one thing.

8. *' This same is proved by the reason we alleged
before ; that seeing the church was infallible in all her
definitions ere scripture was written, (unless we will
take away all certainty of faith for that time,) we can-
not with any show of reason affirm, that she hath been
deprived thereof by the adjoined comfort and help of
sacred writ.

9. " Moreover, to say that the catholic church may
propose any false doctrine, maketh her liable to damn-
able sin and error ; and yet Dr. Potter teacheth, that
the church cannot err damnably. For if in that kind
of oath which divines call assertorium, wherein God is
called to witness, every falsehood is a deadly sin in
any private person whatsoever, although the thing be
of itself neither material nor prejudicial to any ; be-
cause the quantity or greatness of that sin is not mea-
sured so much by the thing which is affirmed, as by the
manner and authority whereby it is avouched, and by
the injury that is offered to Almighty God, in applying
his testimony to a falsehood : in which respect it is the
unanimous consent of all divines, that in such kind of
oaths, no levitas materice, that is, smallness of matter,
can excuse from a mortal sacrilege against the moral
virtue of religion, which respects worship due to God :
if, I say, every least falsehood be deadly sin in the
foresaid kind of oath, much more pernicious a sin
must it be in the public person of the catholic church
to propound untrue articles of faith, thereby fastening

CHILLINGWORTH, VOL. I. U

290 Charity Maintained hy Catholics. part i.

God's prime verity to falsehood, and inducing and
obliging the world to do the same. Besides, according
to the doctrine of all divines, it is not only injurious
to God's eternal verity, to disbelieve things by him
revealed, but also to propose as revealed truths things
not revealed ; as in commonwealths it is a heinous
offence to coin either by counterfeiting the metal or
the stamp, or to apply the king's seal to a writing
counterfeit, although the contents were supposed to
be true. And whereas, to shew the detestable sin of
such pernicious fictions, the church doth most exem-
plarily punish all broachers of feigned revelations,
visions, miracles, prophecies, &c., as in particular ap-
peareth in the council of Lateran^, excommunicating
such persons : if the church herself could propose false
revelations, she herself should have been the first and
chiefest deserver to have been censured, and as it were
excommunicated by herself. For, as the Holy Ghost
saith in Job ^, JDoth God need your lie, that for him
you may speak deceits ? And that of the Apocalypse
is most truly verified in fictitious revelations"^ : If any
shall add to these things, God will add unto him the
plagues which are written in this book. And Dr. Potter
saith ", to ' add to it ' (speaking of the Creed) ' is high
presumption, almost as great as to detract from it.'
And therefore to say the church may add false revela-
tions, is to accuse her of high presumption and of
pernicious error, excluding salvation.

10. " Perhaps some will here reply, that although
the church may err, yet it is not imputed to her for
sin, by reason she doth not err upon malice or wit-
tingly, but by ignorance or mistake.

11. " But it is easily demonstrated that this excuse

^ Sub Leon. lo. Sess. ii. 1 Cap. xiii. 7.

i» Cap. ult. 18. n Page 222.

CHAP. ^ II. Charity Maintained by Catholics, 291

cannot serve : for if the church be assisted only for
points fundamental, she cannot but know that she may-
err in points not fundamental, at least she cannot be
certain that she cannot err, and therefore cannot be
excused from headlong and pernicious temerity, in
proposing points not fundamental to be believed by
Christians as matters of faith, wherein she can have
no certainty, yea, which always imply a falsehood : for
although the thing might chance to be true, and per-
haps all revealed, yet for the matter, she, for her part,
doth always expose herself to danger of falsehood and
error, and in fact doth always err in the manner in
which she doth propound any matter not fundamental;
because she proposeth it as a point of faith certainly
true, which yet is always uncertain if she in such
things may be deceived.

12. " Besides, if the church may err in points not
fundamental, she may err in proposing some scripture
for canonical which is not such ; or else err in keeping
and conserving from corruptions such scriptures as are
already believed to be canonical. For I will suppose,
that in such apocryphal scripture as she delivers,
there is no fundamental error against faith, or that
there is no falsehood at all, but only want of Divine
testification : in which case Dr. Potter must either
grant that it is a fundamental error to apply Divine
revelation to any point not revealed, or else must yield
that the church may err in her proposition or custody
of the canon of scripture : and so we cannot be sure,
whether she hath not been deceived already in books
recommended by her, and accepted by Christians. And
thus we shall have no certainty of scripture, if the
church want certainty in all her definitions : and it is
worthy to be observed, that some books of scripture,
which wei*e not always known to be canonical, have

u 2

292 Charity Maintained by Catholics. part i.

been afterwards received for such ; but never any one
book or syllable defined by the church to be canonical
was afterward questioned or rejected for apocryphal ;
a sign that God's church is infallibly assisted by the
Holy Ghost, never to propose as Divine truth any thing
not revealed by God ; and, that omission to define
points not suflficiently discussed is laudable ; but com-
mission in propounding things not revealed, inexcus-
able : into which precipitation our Saviour Christ never
hath, nor never will permit his church to fall.

13. " Nay, to limit the general promises of our
Saviour Christ made to his church to points only fun-
damental ; namely, that tJie gates of hell shall not
pt^evail against her^ ; and that the Holy Ghost shall
lead her into all truths, &c., is to destroy all faith. For
we may, by that doctrine and manner of interpreting
the scripture, limit the infallibility of the apostles' words
and preaching only to points fundamental : and what-
soever general texts of scripture shall be alleged for
their infallibility, they may, by Dr. Potter's example,
be explicated and restrained to points fundamental.
By the same reason it may be further aflftrmed, that
the apostles, and other writers of canonical scripture,
were endued with infallibility only in setting down
points fundamental. For if it be urged, that ' all
scripture is divinely inspired ;' that ' it is the word of
God,' &c. ; Dr. Potter hath afforded you a ready an-
swer, to say that * scripture is inspired,' &c. only in
those parts or parcels wherein it delivereth fundamen-
tal points. In this manner Dr. Fotherby saith% ^ The
apostle twice in one chapter professed, that this he
speaketh, and not the Lord: he is very well content
that where he wants the warrant of the express word

o Matt. xvi. 1 8. P John xvi. 13.

q In his Sermons. Serm. II. page 50.

CHAP. III. Charity Maintained hi/ Catholics. 293

of God, that part of his writings sliould be esteemed
as the word of man.' Dr. Potter also speaks very
dangerously towards this purpose, §. 5, where he en-
deavoureth to prove that the infallibility of the church
is limited to points fundamental, because ' as nature,
so God is neither defective in necessaries, nor lavish
in superfluities *•.' Which reason doth likewise prove,
that the infallibility of scripture and of the apostles
must be restrained to points necessary to salvation,
that so God be not accused * as defective in necessaries,
or lavish in superfluities.' In the same place he hath
a discourse much tending to this purpose ; where,
speaking of these words. The Spirit shall lead you
into all truths and shall abide with you for ever^, he
saith S ' Though that promise was directly and pri-
marily made to the apostles, (who had the Spirit's
guidance in a more high and absolute manner than
any since them,) yet it was made to them for the be-
hoof of the church, and is verified in the church uni-
versal. But all truth is not simply all, but all of some
kind. To be led into all truths is to know and believe
them. And who is so simple, as to be ignorant that
there are many millions of truths (in nature, history,
divinity) whereof the church is simply ignorant ? How
many truths lie unrevealed in the infinite treasure of
God's wisdom, wherewith the church is not acquaint-
ed? &c. So then the truth itself enforceth us to under-
stand by all truths not simply all, not all which God
can possibly reveal, but all pertaining to the substance of
faith, all truth absolutely necessary to salvation.' Mark
what he saith : * That promise {the Spirit shall lead you
into all truth) was made directly to the apostles, and is
verified in the universal church ; but by all truth is not

r Page 150. s John xvi. 13. and xiv. 16. * Page 151, 152.

u 3

. 294 Charity Maintained hy Catholics. part i.

understood simply all, but all appertaining to the sub-
stance of faith, and absolutely necessary to salvation/
Doth it not hence follow, that the promise made to the
apostles, of being led into all truth, is to be understood
only of all truth absolutely necessary to salvation ; and
consequently their preaching and vrriting weve not in-
fallible in points not fundamental ? Or if the apostles
were infallible in all things which they proposed as
Divine truth, the like must be affirmed of the church,
because Dr. Potter teach eth the said promise to be
verified in the church. And as he limits the aforesaid
words to points fundamental, so may he restrain what
other text soever that can be brought for the universal
infallibility of the apostles or scriptures ; so he may,
and so he must, lest otherwise he receive this answer
of his own from himself : ' How many truths lie un-
revealed in the infinite treasure of God's wisdom,
wherewith the church is not acquainted ?' And there-
fore, to verify such general sayings, they must be
understood of truths absolutely necessary to salvation.
Are not these fearful consequences ? And yet Dr. Pot-
ter will never be able to avoid them, till he come to
acknowledge the infallibility of the church in all points
by her proposed as Divine truths : and thus it is uni-
versally true, that she is led into all truth, in regard
that our Saviour never permits her to define or teach
any falsehood.

14. " All that with any colour may be replied to
this argument, is. That if once we call any one book or
parcel of scripture in question, although for the matter
it contains no fundamental error, yet it is of great
importance, and fundamental, by reason of the conse-
quence ; because if once we doubt of one book received
for canonical, the whole canon is made doubtful and
uncertain, and therefore the infallibility of scripture

CHAP. III. Charity Maintained by Cafhotics. 295

must be universal, and not confined within compass of
points fundamental.

15. " I answer: for the thing itself it is very true,
that if I ddubt of any one parcel of scripture received
for such, I may doubt of all : and thence by the same
parity I infer, that if we doubt of the church's infalli-
bility in some points, we could not believe her in any
one, and consequently not in propounding canonical
books, or any other points fundamental or not funda-
mental ; which thing being most absurd, and withal
most impious, we must take away the ground thereof,
and believe that she cannot err in any point great or
small : and so this reply doth much more strengthen
what we intend to prove. Yet I add, that protest-
ants cannot make use of this reply with any good
coherence to this their distinction and some other doc-
trines which they defend. For if Dr. Potter can tell
what points in particular be fundamental, (as in his
7th §. he pretendeth,) then he might be sure, that
whensoever he meets with such points in scripture, in
them it is infallibly true, although it may err in
others ; and not only true, but clear, because protest -
ants teach that in matters necessary to salvation the
scripture is so clear, that all such necessary truths are
either manifestly contained therein, or may be clearly
deduced from it. Which doctrines being put together,
to wit, that scriptures cannot err in points fundamen-
tal ; that they clearly contain all such points, and that
they can tell what points in particular be such, I mean
fundamental ; it is manifest that it is sufficient for
salvation, that scripture be infallible only in points fun-
damental : for supposing these doctrines of theirs to be
true, they may be sure to find in scripture all points
necessary to salvation, although it were fallible in
other points of less moment : neither will they be able

u 4

296 Charity Maintained by Catholics, part i.

to avoid this impiety against holy scripture, till they
renounce their other doctrines, and in particular, till
they believe that Christ's promises to his church are
not limited to points fundamental.

16. " Besides, from the fallibility of Christ's cath-
olic church in some points, it followeth, that no true
protestant, learned or unlearned, doth or can with as-
surance believe the universal church in any one point of
doctrine : not in points of lesser moment, which they
call not fundamental, because they believe that in such
points she may err : not in fundamental, because they
must know what points be fundamental before they go
to learn of her, lest otherwise they be rather deluded
than instructed, in regard that her certain and infallible
direction extends only to points fundamental. Now if
before they address themselves to the church they must
know what points are fundamental, they learn not of
her^, but will be as fit to teach as to be taught by her:
how then are all Christians so often, so seriously, upon
so dreadful menaces, by fathers, scriptures, and our
blessed Saviour himself, counselled and commanded to
seek, to hear, to obey the church ? St. Austin was of a
very different mind from protestants : *If,' saith he^,
* the church through the whole world practise any of
these things, to dispute whether that ought to be so
done is a most insolent madness.' And in another place
he saith ^ ' That which the whole church holds, and is
not ordained by councils, but hath always been kept, is
most rightly believed to be delivered by apostolical
authority.' The same holy father teacheth, that the
custom of baptizing children cannot be proved by scrip-
ture alone, and yet that it is to be believed, as derived
from the apostles. 'The custom of our mother the

^ Epist. 1 1 8. X Lib. 4. de Bapt. c. 24.

CHAP. III. Charity Maintained lyy Catholics. 297

church,' saith hey, * in baptizing infants, is in no wise
to be condemned, nor to be accounted superfluous, nor
is it at all to be believed, unless it were an apostolical
tradition.' And elsewhere^: * Christ is of profit to
children baptized : is he therefore of profit to persons
not believing ? But God forbid that I should say, infants
do not believe. I have already said, he believes in an-
other, who sinned in another. It is said he believes,
and it is of force, and he is reckoned among the faithful
that are baptized. This is the authority our mother
the church hath ; against this strength, against this
invincible wall, whosoever rusheth shall be crushed in
pieces.' To this argument the protestants, in the con-
ference at Ratisbon, gave this round answer : — Nos ah
Augustino hac in parte liber e dissentimus^ : ' In this
we plainly disagree from Augustin.' Now if this
doctrine of baptizing infants be not fundamental in
Dr. Potter's sense, then, according to St. Augustin,
the infallibility of the church extends to points not
fundamental. But if, on the other side, it be a funda-
mental point ; then, according to the same holy doctor,
we must rely upon the authority of the church for
some fundamental point not contained in scripture, but
delivered by tradition. The like argument I frame
out of the same father, about the not rebaptizing of
those who were baptized by heretics, whereof he ex-
cellently, to our present purpose, speaketh in this
manner: 'We follow^ indeed, in this matter even the
most certain authority of canonical scripture.' But
how ? Consider his words : * Although verily there be
brought no example for this point out of the canonical

y Lib. lo. de Genesi ad liter, cap. 23.
2 Serm 14. de Verbis Apost. c. 18.
* See Protoc. Monach. edit. 2. p. 367.
^ Lib. T. cont. Crescon. cap. 32. 33.

298 Charity Maintained hy Catholics. part i.

scriptures, y^^ even in this point the truth of the same
scripture is held by us, while we do that which the
authority of scriptures doth recommend ; that so,
because the holy scripture cannot deceive us, whoso-
ever is afraid to be deceived by the obscurity of this
question, must have recourse to the same church con-
cerning it, which, without any ambiguity, the holy
scripture doth demonstrate to us.' Among many
other points in the aforesaid words, we are to observe,
that, according to this holy father, when we prove some
points not particularly contained in scripture by the
authority of the church ; even in that case we ought
not to be said to believe such points without scripture,
because scripture itself recommends the church ; and
therefore, relying on her, we rely on scripture, without
danger of being deceived by the obscurity of any ques-
tion defined by the church. And elsewhere he saith^ :
' Seeing this is written in no scripture, we must believe
the testimony of the church, which Christ declareth to
speak the truth.' But it seems, D. Potter is of opinion,
that this doctrine about not rebaptizing such as were
baptized by heretics is no necessary point of faith, nor
the contrary an heresy : wherein he contradicteth
St. Augustin, from whom we have now heard, that
what the church teacheth is truly said to be taught by
scripture ; and consequently to deny this particular
point, delivered by the church, is to oppose scripture
itself. Yet if he will needs hold that this point is
not fundamental, we must conclude out of St. Augustin
(as we did concerning the baptizing of children), that
the infallibility of the church reacheth to points not
fundamental. The same father, in another place, con-
cerning this very question of the validity of baptism

c De Unit. Eccl. cap. 19.

CHAP. III. Charity Maintained hy Catholics. 299

conferred by heretics, saith^: * The apostles indeed
have prescribed nothing of this ; but this custom ought
to be believed to be originally taken from their tradition,
as there are many things that the universal church
observeth, vrhich are therefore w^ith good reason believed
to have been commanded by the apostles, although they
be not written.' No less clear is St. Chrysostom for
the infallibility of the traditions of the church. For,
treating on these words, (2 Thess. ii.) Stand, and hold
the traditions which you have learned, whether by
speech or by our epistle, he saith ® : ' Hence it is
manifest that they delivered not all things by letter,
but many things also without writing ; and these also
are worthy of belief. Let us therefore account the
tradition of the church to be worthy of belief: it is a
tradition : seek no more.' Which words are so plainly
against protestants, that Whitaker is as plain with
St. Chrysostom, saying^: ' I answer that this is an in-
considerable speech, and unworthy so great a father.'
But let us conclude with St. Augustin, that the church
cannot approve any error against faith or good man-
ners : ' The church,' saith he&, ' being placed between
much chaff and cockle, doth tolerate many things ; but
yet she doth not approve, nor dissemble, nor do those
things which are against faith or good life."

17. "And as I have proved that protestants, accord-
ing to their grounds, cannot yield infallible assent to
the church in any one point ; so, by the same reason,
I prove, that they cannot rely upon scripture itself in
any one point of faith : not in points of lesser moment,
(or not fundamental,) because in such points the catho-
lic church, (according to Dr. Potter,) and much more

d De Bapt. cont. Donat. lib. 5. c. 23.

e Horn. 4. f De sacra Script, p. 678. g Ep. 119.

300 Charity Maintained hy Catholics, part i.

any protestant, may err, and think it is contained in
scripture, when it is not : not in points fundamental,
because they must first know what points be funda-
mental, before they can be assured that they cannot
err in understanding the scripture : and consequently,
independently of scripture, they must foreknow all
fundamental points of faith : and therefore they do not
indeed rely upon scripture, either for fundamental or
not fundamental points.

18. " Besides, I mainly urge D. Potter and other
protestants, that they tell us of certain points which
they call fundamental, and we cannot wrest from them
a list in particular of such points, without which no
man can tell whether or no he err in points fundamen-
tal, and be capable of salvation. And, which is most
lamentable, instead of giving us such a catalogue, they
fall to wrangle among themselves about the making of
it.

19. "Calvin holds the pope's primacy, invocation of
saints, freewill, and such like, to be fundamental errors,
overthrowing the gospel^. Others are not of his mind,
as Melancthon, who saith', in the opinion of himself,
and other his brethren, that 'the monarchy of the
bishop of Rome is of use or profit, to this end, that
consent of doctrine may be retained. An agreement,
therefore, may be easily established in this article of
the pope's primacy, if other articles could be agreed
upon.' If the pope's primacy be a means, 'that consent
of doctrine may be retained,' first submit to it, and
other articles will be "easily agreed upon.' Luther
also saith of the pope's primacy, it may be borne
withal^. And why then, O Luther, did you not bear

h Instit. 1. 4. c. 2. i Cent. Ep. Theol. Ep. 74.

^ In Assertionib. art. 36.

CHAP. III. Chanty Maintained by Catholics. 801

with it ? And how can you and your followers be ex-
cused from damnable schism, who chose rather to
divide God's church, than to bear with that which you
confess may be borne withal ? But let us go forward.
That the doctrine of freewill, prayer for the dead,
worshipping of images, worship and invocation of saints,
real presence, transubstantiation, receiving under one
kind, satisfaction and merit of works, and the mass, be
not fundamental errors, is taught respective fby divers
protestants, carefully alleged in the Protestants' Apo-
logy^, &c., as namely, by Perkins, Cartwright, Frith,
Fulk, Henry, Sparke, Goad, Luther, Reynolds, Whit-
aker, Tindal, Francis Johnston, with others. Contrary
to these, is the Confession of the Christian Faith, so
called by protestants, which I mentioned heretofore™,
wherein we are 'damned unto unquenchable fire,' for the
doctrine of mass, prayer to saints and for the dead,
freewill, presence at idol-service, man's merit, with
such like. Justification by faith alone is by some pro-
testants affirmed to be the soul of the church " ;
the only principal origin of salvation^; of all other
points of doctrine the chiefest and weightiest p. Which
yet, as we have seen, is contrary to other protestants,
who teach, that merit of good works is not a fundamen-
tal error ; yea, divers protestants defend merit of good
works, as may be seen in Brerely^. One would think
that the king's supremacy, for which some blessed men
lost their lives, was once among protestants held for a
capital point ; but now. Dr. Andrews, late of Win-

1 Tract. 2. c. 2. sect. 14. after F. ^ Chap. i. par. 4. p. 96.

" Chark in the Tower Disputation, the Four Days* Conference,
o Fox's Acts and Mon. p. 402.
P The Confession of Bohemia in the Harmony of Confessions,

P- 253.

q Tract. 3. sect. 7. under M. n. 15.

302 Charity Maintained by Catholics. part i.

Chester, in his book against Bellarmine, tells us, that
it is sufficient to reckon it among true doctrines. And
Wotton denies that * protestants hold the king's supre-
macy to be an essential point of faith ^.' O freedom
of the new gospel ! Hold with catholics the pope, or
with protestants the king, or with puritans neither
pope nor king, to be head of the church ; all is one,
you may be saved. Some, as Castalio^ and the whole
sect of the academical protestants, hold^ that doctrines
about the supper — baptism — the state and office of
Christ — how he is one with his Father — the Trinity —
predestination — and divers other such questions, are
not necessary to salvation. And (that you may observe
how ungrounded and partial their assertions be) Per-
kins teacheth, that the real presence of our Saviour's
body in the sacrament, as it is believed by catholics, is
a fundamental error ; and yet affirmeth the consub-
stantiation of Lutherans not to be such, notwithstanding
that divers chief Lutherans to their consubstantiation
join the prodigious heresy of ubiquitation. Dr. Usher,
in his sermon of the Unity of the Catholic Faith, grants
salvation to the Ethiopians, who yet with Christian
baptism join circumcision. Dr. Potter^ cites the doctrine
of some, whom he termeth men of great learning and
judgment, that ' all who profess to love and honour
Jesus Christ are in the visible Christian church, and by
catholics to be reputed brethren.' One of these men
of great learning and judgment is Thomas Morton,
by Dr. Potter cited in his margent, whose love and
honour to Jesus Christ you may perceive by his saying,
that * the churches of Arians' (who denied our Saviour

r In his Answer to a Popish Pamphlet, p. 68.
s Vid. G. Reginald. Calv. Turcis. 1. 2. c. 6.
t Page 113, 114. Morton in his Treatise of the Kingdom of
Israel, p. 94.

CHAP. III. Charity Maintained by Catholics, 303

Christ to be God) ' are to be accounted the church of
God, because they do hold the foundation of the gospel,
which is faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and
Saviour of the world.' And, which is more, it seems
by these charitable men, that for being a member of
the church, it is not necessary to believe one only God.
For Dr. Potter", among the arguments to prove Hooker's
and Morton's opinion, brings this ; * The people of the
ten tribes after their defection, notwithstanding their
gross corruption and idolatry,' remaineth still a true
church. We may also, as it seemeth by these men's
reasoning, deny the resurrection, and yet be members
of the true church. For a learned man (saith Dr. Pot-
ter'* in behalf of Hooker's and Morton's opinion) was
anciently made a bishop of the catholic church, though
he did professedly doubt of the last resurrection of our
bodies. Dear Saviour ! what times do we behold ? If
one may be a member of the true church, and yet deny
the Trinity of the Persons, the Godhead of our Saviour,
the necessity of baptism ; if we may use circumcision,
and with the worship of God join idolatry, wherein do
we differ from Turks and Jews? or rather, are we
not worse than either of them ? If they who deny our
Saviour's divinity might be accounted the church of
God, how will they deny that favour to those ancient
heretics, who denied our Saviour's true humanity ? And
so the total denial of Christ will not exclude one from
being a member of the true church. St. Hilary y makes
it of equal necessity for salvation that we believe our
Saviour to be true God and true man, saying : ' This
manner of confession we are to hold, that we remember
him to be the Son of God and the Son of man, because
the one without the other can give no hope of salvation.'

^ Page 121. ^ Page 122. > Comment, in Matt. xvi.

304 Charity Maintained by Catholics, part i.

And yet Dr. Potter saith of the aforesaid doctrine of
Hooker and Morton : ' The reader may be pleased to
approve or reject it, as he shall find cause ^.' And in
another place % he sheweth so much good liking of this
doctrine, that he explicateth and proveth the church's
perpetual visibility by it. And in the second edition
of his book he is careful to declare and illustrate it
more at large than he had done before : hovrsoever,
this sufficiently shevreth, that they have no certainty
what points be fundamental. As for the Arians in
particular, the author v^^hom Dr. Potter cites for a
moderate catholic, but is indeed a plain heretic, or
rather atheist, Lucian-like, jesting at all religion^,
placeth Arianism among fundamental errors : but
contrarily, an English protestant divine, masked under
the name of Irenaeus Philalethes, in a little book in
Latin, entitled JDissertatio de Pace et Concordia
Ecclesicje, endeavoureth to prove, that even the denial
of the blessed Trinity may stand vrith salvation.
Divers protestants have taught, that the Roman church
erreth in fundamental points : but Dr. Potter and
others teach the contrary ; vrhich could not happen,
if they could agree vrhat be fundamental points. You
brand the Donatists with a note of an error, ' in the
matter'^ and the nature of it properly heretical;' because
they taught, that the church remained only with them,
in the part of Donatus. And yet many protestants
are so far from holding that doctrine to be a funda-
mental error, that themselves go further, and say, that
for divers ages before Luther there was no true visible
church at all. It is then too apparent, that you have
no agreement in specifying what be fundamental points ;

z Page 123. a Page 253.

fe A Moderate Examination, &c. cap. i. paulo post initium.

c Page 126.

CHAP. III. Charity Maintained hy Catholics. 305

neither have you any means to determine what they
be ; for if you have any such means, why do you not
agree? Yor tell us the Creed contains all points funda-
mental ; which although it were true, yet you see it
serves not to bring you to a particular knowledge and
agreement in such points. And no wonder: for (be-
sides what I have said already in the beginning of this
chaj)ter, and am to deliver more at large in the next)
after so much labour and paper spent to prove that the
Creed contains all fundamental points, you conclude;
* It remains very probable, that the Creed is the per-
fect summary of those fundamental truths whereof con-
sists the unity of faith and of the catholic church' V
Very probable ! Then, according to all good logic, the
contrary may 'remain very probable,' and so all remain
as full of uncertainty as before. The whole rule, you
say, and the sole judge of your faith must be scripture.
Scripture doth indeed deliver divine truths, but seldom
doth qualify them, or declare whether they be or be
not absolutely necessary to salvation. You fall heavy
upon Charity Mistaken ^ because he demands a parti-
cular catalogue of fundamental points, which yet you
are obliged in conscience to do, if you be able. For
without such a catalogue, no man can be assured
whether or no he have faith sufficient to salvation : and
therefore take it not in ill part, if we again and again
demand such a catalogue. And that you may see we
proceed fairly, I will perform on our behalf what we
request of you, and do here deliver a catalogue, wherein
are comprised all points by us taught to be necessary
to salvation, in these words : * We are obliged, under
pain of damnation, to believe whatsoever the catholic
visible church of Christ proposeth, as revealed by Al-

^ Page 241. e Page 215.

CHILLINGWORTH, VOL. I. X

306 Charity Maintained by Catholics, part i.

mighty God. If any be of another mind, all catholics
denounce him to be no catholic. But enough of this.
And I go forward with the infallibility of the church
in all points.

20. " For even out of your own doctrine, That the
church cannot err in points necessary to salvation, any
wise man will infer, that it behoves all who have care
of their souls not to forsake her in any one point.
First, because they are assured, that although her doc-
trine proved not to be true in some point, yet even, ac-
cording to Dr. Potter, the error cannot be fundamental,
nor destructive of faith and salvation : neither can they
be accused of any the least imprudence in erring (if it
were possible) with the universal church. Secondly,
since she is, under pain of eternal damnation, to be be-
lieved and obeyed in some things, wherein confessedly
she is endued with infallibility, I cannot in wisdom
suspect her credit in matters of less moment : for who
would trust another in matters of highest consequence,
and be afraid to rely on him in things of less moment ?
Thirdly, since (as I said) we are undoubtedly obliged
not to forsake her in the chiefest or fundamental points,
and that there is no rule to know precisely what and
how many those fundamental points be, I cannot,
without hazard of my soul, leave her in any one point,
lest perhaps that point or points, wherein I forsake
her, prove indeed to be fundamental, and necessary to
salvation. Fourthly, that visible church, which can-
not err in points fundamental, doth without distinction
propound all her definitions concerning matters of faith
to be believed under anathemas or curses, esteeming all
those that resist to be deservedly cast out of her com-
munion, and holding it a point necessary to salvation,
that we believe she cannot err : wherein if she speak
truth, then to deny any one point in particular, which

CHAP. III. Charity Maintained by Catholics, 307

she defineth, or to affirm in general that she may err,
puts a man into a state of damnation : whereas to be-
lieve her in such points as are not necessary to salvation
cannot endanger salvation ; as likewise to remain in her
communion can bring no great harm, because she can-
not maintain any damnable error or practice : but
to be divided from her (she being Christ's catholic
church) is most certainly damnable. Fifthly, the
true church being in lawful and certain possession of
superiority and power, to command and require obedi-
ence from all Christians in some things ; I cannot
without grievous sin withdraw . my obedience in any
one, unless T evidently know that the thing commanded
comes not within the compass of those things to which
her power extendeth. And who can better inform me
how far God's church can proceed, than God's church
herself? or to what doctor can the children and scholars
with greater reason and more security fly for direction,
than to the mother and appointed teacher of all Christ-
ians ? In following her, I sooner shall be excused, than
in cleaving to any particular sect or person, teaching
or applying scriptures against her doctrine or inter-
pretation. Sixthly, the fearful examples of innumer-
able persons, who, forsaking the church upon pretence
of her errors, have failed even in fundamental points,
and suffered shipwreck of their salvation, ought to deter
all Christians from opposing her in any one doctrine
or practice : as (to omit other, both ancient and modern
heresies) we see that divers chief protestants, pretend-
ing to reform the corruptions of the church, are come
to affirm, that for many ages she erred to death, and
wholly perished ; which Dr. Potter cannot deny to be a
fundamental error against that article of our Creed, * I
believe the catholic church,' as he affirmeth it of the
Donatists, because they confined the universal church

X 2

308 Charity Maintained Jyy Catholics. part i.

within Africa, or some other small tract of soil. Lest
therefore I may fall into some fundamental error, it is
most safe for me to believe all the decrees of that church
which cannot err fundamentally ; especially if we add,
that according to the doctrine of catholic divines, one
error in faith, whether it be for the matter itself great
or small, destroys faith, as is shewed in Charity Mis-
taken ; and consequently, to accuse the church of
any one error, is to affirm, that she lost all faith,
and erred damnably; which very saying is damn-
able, because it leaves Christ no visible church on
earth.

2il. "To all these arguments I add this demonstra-
tion: Dr. Potter teacheth^, that ' theve neither was
nor can be any just cause to depart from the church of
Christ, no more than from Christ himself.' But if the
church of Christ can err in some points of faith, men
not only may, but must forsake her in those (unless Dr.
Potter will have them believe one thing and profess
another): and if such errors and corruptions should
fall out to be about the church's liturgy, public service,
administration of sacraments, and the like, they who
perceive such errors must of necessity leave her exter-
nal communion. And therefore if once we grant the
church may err, it followeth that men may and ought
to forsake her, (which is against Dr. Potter's own
words,) or else they are inexcusable who left the commu-
nion of the Roman church, under pretence of errors,
which they grant not to be fundamental. And if
Dr. Potter think good to answer this argument, he
must remember his own doctrine to be, that even
the catholic church may err in points not funda-
mental.

22!. " Another argument for the universal infallibility

f Page 75,

CHAP. III. Charily Maintained by Catholics. 309

of the church, I take out of Dr.Potter's own words. ' If,'
saith he^, *we did not dissent in some opinions from the
present Roman church, we could not agree with the
church truly catholic' These words cannot be true,
unless he presuppose that * the church truly catholic'
cannot err in points not fundamental : for if she may
err in such points, the Roman church, which he affirm-
eth to err only in points * not fundamental,' may agree
with ' the church truly catholic,' if she likewise may err
in points ' not fundamental.' Therefore, either he must
acknowledge a plain contradiction in his own words, or
else must grant, that ' the church truly catholic' cannot
err in points ' not fundamental,' which is what we in-
tended to prove.

23. " If words cannot persuade you, that in all con-
troversies you must rely upon the infallibility of the
church, at least yield your assent to deeds : hitherto I
have produced arguments drawn as it were ex natura
rei, from the wisdom and goodness of God, who cannot
fail to have left some infallible means to determine con-
troversies, which, as we have proved, can be no other
except a visible church, infallible in all her definitions.
But because both catholics and protestants receive holy
scripture, we may thence also prove the infallibility of
the church in all matters which concern faith and reli-
gion. Our Saviour speaketh clearly : the gates of hell
shall not prevail against her^. And, / will ask my
Father, and he will give you another Paraclete, that
he may abide with you for ever, the Spirit of truth'^.
And, But when he, the Spirit of truth, cometh, he shall
teach you alltruth^. The apostle saith, that the church
is the pillar and ground of truth^. And, He gave some,

g Page 97. ^ Matt. xvi. 18. i John xiv. 16.

^ John xvi. 13. 1 I Tim. iii. 15.

X 3

310 Charity Maintamed by Catholics. part i.

apostles; and some, prophets ; and other some, evangel-
ists ; and other some, pastors and doctors ; to the con-
summation of the sairits, unto the work of the ministry,
unto the edifying of the body of Christ: until we meet
all into the unity of faith, and knowledge of the Son of
God, into a perfect man, into the measure of the age
of the fulness of Christ : that now we he not children,
wavering and carried about with every wind of doc-
trine, in the wickedness of men, in craftiness, to the cir-
cumvention of error^. All which words seem clearly-
enough to prove that the church is universally infalli-
ble ; without which, unity of faith could not be con-
served against every wind of doctrine. And yet Dr.
Potter'^ limits these promises and privileges to funda-
mental points, in which he grants the church cannot
err. I urge the words of scripture, which are universal,
and do not mention any such restraint. I allege that
most reasonable and received rule, that scripture is to
be understood literally, as it soundeth, unless some ma-
nifest absurdity force us to the contrary. But all will
not serve to accord our different interpretation. In the
mean time divers of Dr. Potter's brethren step in, and
reject his limitation as over-large, and somewhat tast-
ing of papistry : and therefore they restrain the men-
tioned texts, either to the infallibility which the apo-
stles and other sacred writers had in penning of scripture,
or else to the invisible church of the elect ; and to them
not absolutely, but with a double restriction, that they
shall not fall damnably and finally ; and other men
have as much right as these to interpose their opinion
and interpretation. Behold we are three at debate
about the selfsame words of scripture : we confer di-
vers places and texts ; we consult the originals ; we ex-

"» Ephesiv.Ti — 14. n Page 151. 1. 153.

CHAP. Ill, Charity Maintained hy Catholics, 811

amine translations ; we endeavour to pray heartily ; we
profess to speak sincerely ; to seek nothing but truth,
and the salvation of our own souls and that of our
neighbours ; and, finally, we use all those means, which
by protestants themselves are prescribed for finding
out the true meaning of scripture : nevertheless we
neither do, or have any possible means to agree, as
long as we are left to ourselves ; and when we should
chance to be agreed, the doubt will still remain, whe-
ther the thing itself be a fundamental point or no :
and yet it were great impiety to imagine that God,
the lover of all souls, hath left no certain infallible
means to decide both this and all other differences
arising about the interpretation of scripture, or upon
any other occasion. Our remedy therefore in these
contentions must be, to consult and hear God's visible
church, with submissive acknowledgment of her power
and infallibility in whatsoever she proposeth as a re-
vealed truth ; according to that Divine advice of St.
Augustin, in these words : ' If at length thou seem
to be sufficiently tossed, and hast a desire to put an
end to thy pains, follow the way of the catholic disci-
pline, which from Christ himself, by the apostles, hath
come down even to us, and from us shall descend to
all posterity °.' And though I conceive that the dis-
tinction of points fundamental and not fundamental
hath now been sufficiently confuted, yet that no shadow
of difficulty may remain, I will particularly refel a
common saying of protestants. That it is sufficient for
salvation to believe the Apostles' Creed, which they
hold to be a summary of all fundamental points of
faith."

o De Util. Cred. cap. 8.

X 4

312 Points rightly distinguished p. i. ch. in.

THE

ANSWER TO THE THIRD CHAPTER:

Wherein it is maintained, that the distinction of points fun-
damental and not fundamental is in this present contro-
versy good and pertinent : and that the catholic church
may err in the latter kind of the said points.

1. X HIS distinction is employed by protestants to
many purposes ; and therefore if it be pertinent and
good, (as they understand and apply it,) the whole
edifice built thereon must be either firm and stable, or,
if it be not, it cannot be for any default in this dis-
tinction.

2. " If you object to them discords in matters of
faith without any means of agreement," they will an-
swer you, that they want not good and solid means of
agreement in matters necessary to salvation ; viz. their
belief of all those things which are plainly and undoubt-
edly delivered in scripture, which whoso believes must
of necessity believe all things necessary to salvation ;
and their mutual suffering one another to " abound in
their several sense," in matters not plainly and un-
doubtedly there delivered. And for their agreement
in all controversies of religion, either they may have
means to agree about them or not ; if you say they
have, why did you before deny it ? if they have not
means, why do you find fault with them for not
agreeing ?

3. You will say, that their fault is, that " by remain-
ing protestants they exclude themselves from the means
of agreement which you have," and which by submission
to your church they might have also. But if you have
means of agreement, the more shame for you that you

ANSWER, into Fundamental and not Fundame^ital, 313

still disagree. For who, I pray, is more inexcusably
guilty for the omission of any duty ; they that either
have no means to do it, or else know of none they
have, which puts them in the same case as if they had
none ; or they which profess to have an easy and ex-
pedite means to do it, and yet still leave it undone?
If you had been blind, (saith our Saviour to the Pha-
risees,) you had had no sin ; but now you say you see,
therefore your sin remaineth.

4. If you say, you "do agree in matters of faith," I
say this is ridiculous, for you define matters of faith to
be those wherein you agree : so that to say you agree
"in matters of faith," is to say, you agree in those things
wherein you do agree. And do not protestants do so
likewise ? Do not they agree in those things wherein
they do agree ?

5. " But you are all agreed, that only those things
wherein you do agree are matters of faith." And pro-
testants, if they were wise, would do so too. Sure I
am they have reason enough to do so : seeing all of
them agree with explicit faith in all those things which
are plainly and undoubtedly delivered in scripture ;
that is, in all which God hath plainly revealed : and
with an implicit faith in that sense of the whole scrip-
ture which God intended, whatsoever it was. Se-
condly, that which you pretend is false ; for else why
do some of you hold it against faith, to take or allow
the oath of allegiance ; others, as learned and honest
as they, that it is against faith and unlawful to refuse
it, and allow the refusing of it ? Why do some of you
hold that it is de fide, that the pope is head of the
church by Divine law, others the contrary ? Some hold
it defide, that the blessed Virgin was free from actual
sin ; others, that it is not so. Some, that the pope's

314 Points rightly distinguished p. i. ch. hi.

indirect power over princes in temporalities is de fide ;
others the contrary. Some, that it is universal tra-
dition, and consequently defide, that the Virgin Mary
was conceived in original sin ; others the contrary.

6. But what shall we say now, if you be not agreed
touching your pretended means of agreement, how
then can you pretend to unity, either actual or poten-
tial, more than protestants may? Some of you say,
the pope alone without a council may determine all
controversies ; but others deny it. Some, that a gene-
ral council without a pope may do so : others deny
this. Some, both in conjunction are infallible deter-
miners ; others again deny this. Lastly, some among
you hold the acceptation of the decrees of councils by
the universal church to be the only way to decide con-
troversies : which others deny, by denying the church
to be infallible. And, indeed, what way of ending
controversies can this be, when either part may pre-
tend that they are part of the church, and they receive
not the decree, therefore the whole church hath not
received it ?

7. Again, means of agreeing differences are either
rational and well-grounded, and of God's appointment ;
or voluntary, and taken up at the pleasure of men.
Means of the former nature, we say, you have as little
as we. For where hath God appointed, that the pope,
or a council, or a council confirmed by the pope, or
that society of Christians which adhere to him, shall
be the infallible judge of controversies ? I desire you
to shew any one of these assertions plainly set down
in scripture, (as in all reason a thing of this nature
should be,) or at least delivered with a full consent of
fathers, or at least taught in plain terms by any one
father for four hundred years after Christ. And if you

ANSWER, into Fundamental and not Fundamental. 315

cannot do this, (as I am sure you cannot,) and yet will
still be obtruding yourselves upon us for our judges,
who will not cry out,

perisse frontem de rebus ?

8. But then for means of the other kind, such as
yours are, we have great abundance of them. For
besides all the ways which you have devised, which
we make use of when we please, we have a great many
more, which you yet have never thought of, for which
we have as good colour out of scripture as you have
for yours. For first, we could, if we would, try it by
lots whose doctrine is true and whose false ; and you
know it is written % The lot is cast into the lap; hut
the whole disposition of it is from the Lord, 2. We
could refer them to the king, and you know it is writ-
ten, A divine sentence is in the lips of the king : his
mouth transgresseth not in judgment^. The heart of
the Jcing is in the hand of the Lord^, We could refer
the matter to any assembly of Christians assembled in
the name of Christ, seeing it is written. Where two
or three are gathered together in my name, there am
1 in the midst ofthem^. We may refer it to any priest,
because it is written. The priest 's lips shall preserve
knowledge^. The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses*
chair^, &c. To any preacher of the gospel, to any
pastor or doctor; for to every one of them Christ
hath promised^, he will be with them always, even
to the end of the world; and of every one of them
it is said ^, He that heareth you heareth me, &c. To
any bishop or prelate ; for it is written ^ Obey your
prelates ; and again ^, He hath given pastors and doc-

a Prov. xvi. 33. ^ Prov. xvi. 10. c ProV. xxi. i.

d Matt, xviii. 20. e Mai. ii. 7. f Matt, xxiii. 2.

g Matt, xxviii. 20. h Luke x. 16. i Heb. xiii. 17.
k Eph. iv. II.

316 Points rightly distinguished p. i. ch. hi.

tors, &c. lest we should be carried about with every
wind of doctrine. To any particular church of Christ-
ians, seeing it is a particular church which is called,
the house of God, the pillar and ground qftruth^; and
seeing of any particular church it is written ™, He that
heareth not the church, let him be unto thee as a hea-
then or publican. We might refer it to any man that
prays for God's Spirit ; for it is written", Every one
that asheth receiveth: and again ^, If any man want
wisdom, let him ash of God, who giveth all men liber-
ally, and upbraideth not. Lastly, we might refer it
to the Jews, for without all doubt of them it is writ-
ten?. My Spirit that is in thee, &c. All these means
of agreement, whereof not any one but hath as much
probability from scripture as that which you obtrude
upon us, offer themselves upon a sudden to me ; haply
many more might be thought on if we had time, but
these are enough to shew, that would we make use of
voluntary and devised means to determine differences,
we had them in great abundance. And if you say.
These would fail us, and contradict themselves ; so, as
we pretend, have yours. There have been popes
against popes ; councils against councils ; councils
confirmed by popes against councils confirmed by
popes ; lastly, the church of some ages against the
church of other ages.

Lastly, whereas you find fault, " that protestants
upbraided with their discord, answer, that they differ
only in points not fundamental ;" I desire you to tell
me, whether they do so, or do not so : if they do so, I
hope you will not find fault with the answer ; if you
say they do not so, but in points fundamental also^
then they are not members of the same church one

1 I Tim. iii. 15. m Matt, xviii. 17. n Matt. vii. 8.

o James i. 5. P Isa. lix. 21.

ANSWER, into Fundammtal and not Fundamental. 317

with another, no more than with you : and therefore
why should you object to any of them their differences
from each other, any more than to yourselves their
more and greater differences from you ?

10. But " they are convinced sometimes even by
their own confessions, that the ancient fathers taught
divers points of popery ; and then they reply, those fa-
thers may nevertheless be saved, because those errors were
not fundamental." And may not you also be convinced,
by the confessions of your own men, that the fathers
taught divers points held by protestants against the
church of Rome, and divers against protestants and the
church of Rome ? Do not your purging indexes clip
the tongues and seal up the lips of a great many for
such confessions ; and is not the above-cited confession
of your Doway divines plain and full to the same pur-
pose ? And do not you also, as freely as we, charge the
fathers with errors, and yet say they were saved. Now
what else do we understand by an unfundamental
error, but such a one with which a man may possibly
be saved? So that still you proceed in condemning
others for your own faults, and urging arguments
against us which return more strongly upon your-
selves.

11. But your will is, " we should remember that
Christ must always have a visible church." Ans.
Your pleasure shall be obeyed, on condition you will
not forget, that there is a difference between perpetual
visibility and perpetual purity. As for the answer
which you make for us, true it is we believe the catho-
lic church cannot perish, yet that she may and did err
in points not fundamental ; and that protestants were
obliged to forsake those errors of the church, as they
did, though not the church for her errors ; for that they
did not, but continued still members of the church.

318 Points rightly distinguished p. i. CH. iii.

For it is not all one (though you perpetually confound
them) "to forsake the errors of the church," and " to for-
sake the church : 'or "to forsake the church in her error,"
and '* simply to forsake the church ;" no more than it is
for me to renounce my brother's or my friend's vices or
errors, and to renounce my brother or my friend. The
former then was done by protestants, the latter was
not done : nay, not only not from the catholic, but not so
much as from the Roman, did they separate per omnia;
but only in those practices which they conceived super-
stitious or impious. If you would at this time propose
a form of liturgy which both sides hold lawful, and
then they would not join with you in this liturgy, you
might have some colour then to say, they renounce
your communion absolutely. But as things are now
ordered, they cannot join with you in prayers, but
they must partake with you in unlawful practices ; and
for this reason they (not absolutely, but thus far) se-
parate from your communion. And this, I say, they
were obliged to do under pain of damnation. "Not as
if it were damnable to hold an error not damnable,"
but because it is damnable outwardly to profess and
maintain it, and to join with others in the practice of
it, when inwardly they did not hold it. Now had they
continued in your communion, that they must have
done, viz. have professed to believe, and externally
practised your errors, whereof they were convinced
that they were errors ; which, though the matters of the
errors had been not necessary, but only profitable,
whether it had not been damnable dissimulation and
hypocrisy, I leave it to you to judge. You yourself
tell us, within two pages after this, "that you are
obliged never to speak any one least lie against your
knowledge," §. 2. Now what is this but to live in a
perpetual lie ?

ANswEii. into Fundamental and not Fundamental. 319

12. As for that which, in the next place, you seem
so to wonder at, that *'both catholics and protestants, ac-
cording to the opinion of protestants, may be saved in
their several professions, because, forsooth, we both
agree in all fundamental points ;" I answer, this propo-
sition, so crudely set down, as you have here set it
down, I know no protestant will justify : for you seem
to make them teach that it is an indifferent thing, for
the attainment of salvation, whether a man believe the
truth or the falsehood ; and that they care not in
whether of these religions a man live or die, so he die
in either of them: whereas all that they say is this.
That those amongst you which want means to find
the truth, and so die in error ; or use the best means
they can with industry and without partiality to find
the truth, and yet die in error, these men, thus qualified,
notwithstanding these errors, may be saved. Secondly,
for those that have means to find the truth, and will
not use them^ they conceive though their case be dan-
gerous, yet if they die with a general repentance for all
their sins, known and unknown, their salvation is not
desperate. The truths which they hold, of faith in
Christ and repentance, being, as it were, an antidote
against their errors, and their negligence in seeking the
truth. Especially, seeing by confession of both sides
we agree in much more than is simply and indispensa-
bly necessary to salvation.

13. "But seeing we make such various use of this
distinction, is it not prodigiously strange that we will
never be induced to give in a particular catalogue what
points be fundamental?" And why, I pray, is it so
"prodigiously strange," that we give no answer to an un-
reasonable demand ? God himself hath told us^, that
where much is given, much shall be required; where

q Luke xii. 48.

820 Points rightly distinguished p. i. ch. hi.

little is given, little shall he required. To infants, deaf
men, madmen, nothing, for aught we know, is given ;
and if it be so, of them nothing shall be required.
Others, perhaps, may have means only given them to
believe, that God, is and that he is a rewarder of them
that seek him^ ; and to whom thus much only is given,
to them it shall not be damnable, that they believe but
only thus much. Which methinks is very manifest
from the apostle, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where,
having first said, that without faith it is impossible to
please God, he subjoins as his reason, For whosoever
Cometh unto God must believe that God is, and that he
is a rewarder of them that seek him. Where, in my
opinion, this is plainly intimated, that this is the rnini-
mum quod sic, the lowest degree of faith wherewith, in
men capable of faith, God will be pleased ; and that
with this lowest degree he will be pleased, where means
of rising higher are deficient. Besides, if without this
belief, that God is, and that he is a rewarder of them
that seek him, God will not be pleased, then his will is,
that we should believe it. Now his will it cannot be
that we should believe a falsehood ; it must be therefore
true, that he is a rewarder of them that seek him. Now
it is possible that they which never heard of Christ
may seek God ; therefore it is true, that even they shall
please him, and be rewarded by him ; I say rewarded,
not with bringing them immediately to salvation
without Christ, but with bringing them, according to
his good pleasure, first, to faith in Christ, and so to
salvation. To which belief the story of Cornelius, in
the tenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, and St.
Peter's words to him, are to me a great inducement.
For,- first, it is evident he believed not in Christ, but

' Heb. xi. 6.

ANSWER, into Fundamental arid not Fundamental. 321

was a mere Gentile, and one that knew not but men
might be worshipped ; and yet we are assured, that his
prayers and alms (even while he was in that state)
came up for a memorial before God ; that his prayer
was heard^ and his alms had in remembrance in the
sight of God, ver. 4 ; that upon his then foaring God,
and working righteousness, (such as it was,) he was ac-
cepted with God. But how accepted? Not to be
brought immediately to salvation, but to be promoted
to a higher degree of the knowledge of God's will : for
so it is in the fourth and fifth verses ; Call for one Si-
mon, whose surname is Peter ; he shall tell thee what
thou oughtest to do : and at ver. 33, We are all here
present before God, to hear all things that are com-
manded thee of God. So that though even in his gen-
tilism, he was accepted for his present state ; yet if he
had continued in it, and refused to believe in Christ
after the sufficient revelation of the gospel to him, and
God's will to have him believe it, he that was accepted
before would not have continued accepted still : for then
that condemnation had come upon him, that light
was come unto him, and he loved darkness more than
light. So that (to proceed a step further) to whom
faith in Christ is sufficiently propounded as necessary
to salvation, to them it is simply necessary and funda-
mental to believe in Christ ; that is, to expect remission
of sins and salvation from him, upon the performance
of the conditions he requires ; among which conditions
one is, that we believe what he hath revealed, when it
is sufficiently declared to have been revealed by him :
for by doing so we set our seal that God is true, and
that Christ was sent by him. Now that may be suffi-
ciently declared to one, (all things considered,) which
(all things considered) to another is not sufficiently de-
clared ; and, consequently, that may be fundamental

CHILLINGWORTH, VOL. I. Y

322 Points rightly distbiguished p. i. ch. hi.

and necessary to one, which to another is not so.
Which variety of circumstances makes it impossible to
set down an exact catalogue of fundamentals ; and
proves your request as reasonable as if you should
desire us (according to the fable) to make a coat to fit
the moon in all her changes ; or to give you a garment
that will fit all statures; or to make you a dial to
serve all meridians ; or to design particularly what
provision will serve an army for a year ; whereas there
may be an army of ten thousand, there may be of one
hundred thousand : and therefore, without setting
down a catalogue of fundamentals in particular, (be-
cause none that can be given can universally serve for
all men, God requiring more of them to whom he
gives more, and less of them to whom he gives less,)
we must content ourselves by a general description to
tell you what is fundamental ; and to warrant us in
doing so, we have your example, ^. 195 where being
engaged to give us a catalogue of fundamentals, instead
thereof you tell us only in general, " that all is funda-
mental, and not to be disbelieved under pain of damna-
tion, which the church hath defined." As you there-
fore think it enough to say in general, " that all is
fundamental which the church hath defined," without
setting down in particular a complete catalogue of all
things which in any age the church hath defined;
(which, I believe, you will not undertake to do ; and if
you do, it will be contradicted by your fellows ;) so in
reason you might think it enough for us also to say
in general. That it is sufficient for any man's salvation
to believe that the scripture is true, and contains all
things necessary for salvation ; and to do his best en-
deavour to find and believe the true sense of it ; with-
out delivering any particular catalogue of the funda-
mentals of faith.

AUswEE. into Fundamental and not Fundamental, 323

14. Neither doth the want of such a catalogue leave
us in such a perplexed uncertainty as you pretend.
For though, perhaps, we cannot exactly distinguish in
the scripture what " is revealed, because it is neces-
sary," from what is " necessary, consequently and ac-
cidentally, merely because it is revealed ;" yet we are
sure enough, that all that is necessary any way is
there ; and therefore in believing all that is there, we
are sure to believe all that is necessary. And if we
err from the true and intended sense of some, nay of
many, obscure and ambiguous texts of scripture, yet
we may be sure enough that we err not damnably;
because if we do indeed desire and endeavour to find
the truth, we may be sure we do so, and as sure that
it cannot consist with the revealed goodness of God to
damn him for error that desires and endeavours to find
the truth.

15. Ad J. 2. The effect of this paragraph (for as
much as concerns us) is this : that " for any man to
deny belief to any one thing, be it great or small,
known by him to be revealed by Almighty God for a
truth, is, in effect, to charge God with falsehood ; for
it is to say, that God affirms that to be a truth which
he either knows to be not a truth, or which he doth
not know to be a truth : and therefore, without all
controversy, this is a damnable sin." To this I sub-
scribe with hand and heart, adding withal, that not
only he which knows, but he which believes, (nay,
though it be erroneously,) any thing to be revealed by
God, and yet will not believe it nor assent unto it, is
in the same case, and commits the same sin of deroga-
tion from God's most perfect and pure veracity.

16. Ad §. 3. I said purposely; (*' known by himself,
and believes himself ;") for as, without any disparage-
ment of a man's honesty, I may believe something to

Y 2

324 Points rightly distinguished p. i.chiii.

be false which he affirms of his certain knowledge to be
true, provided I neither know nor believe that he
hath so affirmed ; so without any the least dishonour
to God's eternal never-failing veracity, I may doubt of
or deny some truth revealed by him, if I neither know
nor believe it to be revealed by him.

17. Seeing therefore the crime of calling God's vera-
city in question, and consequently (according to your
grounds) of erring fundamentally, is chargeable upon
those only that believe the contrary of any one point
known, not by others, but themselves, to be testified
by God ; I cannot but fear (though I hope otherwise)
that your heart condemned you of a great calumny
and egregious sophistry in imputing fundamental and
damnable errors to disagreeing protestants, because,
forsooth, " some of them disbelieve, and directly, wit-
tingly, and willingly oppose, what others do believe to
be testified by the word of God." The sophistry of
your discourse will be apparent if it be contrived into
a syllogism : thus therefore in effect you argue,

Whosoever disbelieves any thing known by himself
to be revealed by God imputes falsehood to God,
and therefore errs fundamentally :
But some protestants disbelieve those things which

others believe to be testified by God ;
Therefore they impute falsehood to God, and err fun-
damentally.
Neither can you with any colour pretend, that in
these words, " known to be testified by God," you
meant, " not by himself, but by any other :" seeing he
only in fact affirms, that God doth deceive, or is de-
ceived, who denies some things which himself knows
or believes to be revealed by God, as before I have
demonstrated. For otherwise, if I should deny belief
to some thing which God had revealed secretly to such

ANSWER, into Fundamental and not Fundamental, 325

a man as I had never heard of, I should be guilty of
calling God's veracity into question, which is evidently
false. Besides, how can it be avoided, but the Jesuits
and Dominicans, the Dominicans and Franciscans,
must upon this ground differ fundamentally, and one
of them err damnably, seeing the one of them disbe-
lieves and willingly opposes what the others believe to
be the word of God ?

18. AVhereas you say, that " the difference among
protestants consists in this, that some believe some
points of which others are ignorant, or not bound ex-
pressly to know ;" I would gladly know whether you
speak of protestants differing in profession only, or in
opinion also. If the first, why do you say presently
after, " that some disbelieve what others of them be-
lieve ?" If they differ in opinion, then sure they are
ignorant of the truth of each other's opinions ; it being
impossible and contradictious, that a man should know
one thing to be true and believe the contrary, or
know it and not believe it. And if they do not know
the truth of each other's opinions, then I hope you
will grant they are ignorant of it. If your meaning
were. They were not ignorant that each other held
these opinions, or of the sense of the opinions which
they held ; I answer, this is nothing to the convincing
of their understandings of the truth of them ; and
these remaining unconvinced of the truth of them,
they are excusable if they do not believe.

19. But " ignorance of what we are expressly
bound to know, is itself a fault, and therefore cannot
be an excuse :" and therefore if you could shew that
protestants differ in those points the truth where-
of (which can be but one) they were bound expressly
to know, I should easily yield that one side must of
necessity be in a mortal crime. But for want of proof

Y 3

Points rightly distinguished p. r. ch. hi.

of this, you content yourself only to say it ; and there-
fore I also might be contented only to deny it, yet I will
not, but give a reason for my denial. And my reason
is, because our obligation expressly to know any Di-
vine truth must arise from God's manifest revealing
of it, and his revealing unto us that he hath revealed
it, and that his will is we should believe it : now in the
points controverted among protestants he hath not so
dealt with us, therefore he hath not laid any such
obligation upon us. The major of this syllogism is
evident, and therefore I will not stand to prove it. The
minor also will be evident to him that considers, that
in all the controversies of protestants there is a seem-
ing conflict of scripture with scripture, reason with
reason, authority with authority : which how it can
consist with the manifest revealing of the truth of
either side, I cannot well understand. Besides, though
we grant that scripture, reason, and authority were all
on one side, and the appearances of the other side ^ all
easily answerable; yet if we consider the strange
power that education and prejudices instilled by it
have over even excellent understandings, we may well
imagine, that many truths which in themselves are
revealed plainly enough, are yet to such or such a
man, prepossessed with contrary opinions, not revealed
plainly. Neither doubt I but God, who knows whereof
we are made, and what passions we are subject unto,
will compassionate such infirmities, and not enter into
judgment with us for those things which, all things
considered, were unavoidable.

20. " But till fundamentals," say you, " be suf-
ficiently proposed, (as revealed by God,) it is not against
faith to reject them ; or rather, it is not possible pru-
dently to believe them : and points unfundamental
s all answerable Oxf,

ANSWER, into Fundamental and not Fundamental. 327

being thus sufficiently proposed as Divine truths, may
not be denied : therefore you conclude, there is no
difference between them." Answ, A circumstantial
point may by accident become fundamental, because
it may be so proposed, that the denial of it will draw
after it the denial of this fundamental truth. That all
which God says is true. Notwithstanding in them-
selves there is a main difference between them ; "points
fundamental being those only which are revealed by
God, and commanded to be preached to all and be-
lieved by all. Points circumstantial being such, as
though God hath revealed them, yet the pastors of the
church are not bound under pain of damnation par-
ticularly to teach them unto all men every where, and
the people may be securely ignorant of them."

21. You say, "not erring in points fundamental is
not sufficient for the preservation of the church ; be-
cause any error maintained by it against God's revela-
tion is destructive." I answer, if you mean against
God's revelation known by the church to be so, it
is true, but impossible that the church should do
so ; for ipso facto in doing it, it were a church no
longer. But if you mean against some revelation
which the church by error thinks to be no revelation,
it is false. The church may ignorantly disbelieve such
a revelation, and yet continue a church ; which thus I
prove : That the gospel was to be preached to all na-
tions, was a truth revealed before our Saviour's ascen-
sion, in these words ; Go and teach all nations (Matt,
xxviii. 19.) : yet, through prejudice or inadvertence, or
some other cause, the church disbelieved it, as it is
apparent out of the eleventh and twelfth chapters of
the Acts, until the conversion of Cornelius, and yet
was still a church. Therefore, to disbelieve some Di-
vine revelation, not knowing it to be so, is not destruc-

Y 4

328 Points rightly distinguished p. i. ch. hi.

tive of salvation, or of the being of a church. Again,
it is a plain revelation of God*, that the sacrament of
the eucharist should be administered in both kinds :
and ^ that the public hymns and prayers of the church
should be in such a language as is most for edifica-
tion : yet these revelations the church of Rome not
seeing, by reason of the veil before their eyes, their
church's supposed infallibility, I hope the denial of
them shall not be laid to their charge, no otherwise
than as building hay and stubble on the foundation,
not overthrowing the foundation itself.

22. Ad §. 4. In the beginning of this paragraph we
have this argument against this distinction : It is
enough (by Dr. Potter's confession) to believe some things
negatively ; i. e. not to deny them ; therefore all denial
of any Divine truth excludes salvation. As if you
should say. One horse is enough for a man to go a
journey ; therefore without a horse no man can go a
journey. As if some Divine truths, viz. those which
are plainly revealed, might not be such as of necessity
were not to be denied ; and others, for want of suffi-
cient declaration, deniable without danger. Indeed, if
Dr. Potter had said there had been no Divine truth,
declared sufficiently or not declared, but must upon
pain of damnation be believed, or at least not denied,
then you might justly have concluded as you do ; but
now, that some may not be denied, and that some may
be denied without damnation, why they may not both
stand together, I do not yet understand.

23. In the remainder you infer out of Dr. Potter's
words, " that all errors are alike damnable, if the man-
ner of propounding the contrary truths be not different;"
which, for aught I know, all protestants, and all that

t 1 Cor. xi. 28. " iCor. xiv. 15. 16. 26.

ANSWER, into Fundamerttal and not Fundamental, 329

have sense, must grant. Yet I deny your illation from
hence, that the distinction of points into fundamental
and unfundamental is vain and unefFectual for the pur-
pose of protestants. For though, being alike proposed
as Divine truths, they are by accident alike necessary ;
yet the real difference still remains between them, that
they are not alike necessary to be proposed.

24. Ad §. 5. The next paragraph, if it be brought
out of the clouds, will, I believe, have in it these propo-
sitions : 1. Things are distinguished by their different
natures. 2. The nature of faith is taken, not from the
matter believed — for then they that believed different
matters should have different faiths — but from the mo-
tive to it. 8. This motive is God's revelation. 4. This
revelation is alike for all objects. 5. Protestants dis-
agree in things equally revealed by God ; therefore
they forsake the formal motives of faith ; and therefore
have no faith nor unity therein. Which is truly a very
proper and convenient argument to close up a weak
discourse, wherein both the propositions are false for
matter, confused and disordered for the form, and the
conclusion utterly inconsequent. First, for the second
proposition ; who knows not that the essence of all
habits (and therefore of faith among the rest) is taken
from their act and their object ? If the habit be general,
from the act and object in general ; if the habit be
special, from the act and object in special. Then for
the motive to a thing ; that it cannot be of the essence
of the thing to which it moves, who can doubt that
knows that a motive is an efficient cause, and that the
efficient is always extrinsical to the effect? For the
fourth, that God's revelation is alike for all objects, it
is ambiguous : and if the sense of it be, that his reve-
lation is an equal motive to induce us to believe all
objects revealed by him, it is true, but impertinent:

330 Poiiits rightly distingmshed p. i. ch. hi.

if the sense of it be, that all objects revealed by God
are alike (that is, alike plainly and undoubtedly)
revealed by him, it is pertinent, but most untrue.
Witness the great diversity of texts of scripture, where-
of some are so plain and evident, that no man of
ordinary sense can mistake the sense of them ; some
are so obscure and ambiguous, that to say this or this
is the certain sense of them, were high presumption.
For the fifth, protestants disagree in things equally
revealed by God : in themselves, perhaps, but not
equally to them, whose understandings, by reason of
their different educations, are fashioned and shaped for
the entertainment of various opinions, and consequently
some of them more inclined to believe such a sense of
scripture, others to believe another ; which to say that
God will not take it into his consideration in judging
men's opinions, is to disparage his goodness. But to
what purpose is it that these things are equally revealed
to both, (as the light is equally revealed to all blind
men,) if they be not fully revealed to either ? The sense
of this scripture, Why are they then hapthed for the
deadf and this. He shall be saved, yet so as by fire,
and a thousand others, is equally revealed to you and
to another interpreter, that is, certainly to neither.
He now conceives one sense of them, and you another;
and would it not be an excellent inference, if I should
conclude now as you do — That you " forsake the for-
mal motive of faith, which is God's revelation, and
consequently lose all faith and unity therein ?" So like-
wise the Jesuits and Dominicans, and the Franciscans
and Dominicans, disagree about things equally revealed
by Almighty God ; and seeing they do so, I beseech
you let me understand, why this reason will not exclude
them as well as protestants " from all faith and unity
therein ?" Thus you have failed of your undertaking in

ANSWER, into Fundamental and not Fundamental, 331

your first part of your title, and that is a very ill omen,
especially in points of so strait mutual dependance,
that we shall have but slender performance in your
second assumpt ; which is, " that the church is infallible
in all her definitions, whether concerning points funda-
mental or not fundamental."

25. Ad §. 7, 8. The reasons in these two paragraphs,
as they were alleged before, so they were before an-
swered, chap. 2. And thither I remit the reader.

26. Ad 9, 10, 11. I grant that the church cannot
without damnable sin either deny any thing to be truth
which she knows to be God's truth, or propose any
thing as his truth which she knows not to be so. But
that she may not do this by ignorance or mistake, and
so, without damnable sin, that you should have proved,
but have not. But, say you, "this excuse cannot serve :
for if the church be assisted only for points fundamen-
tal, she cannot but know that she may err in points
not fundamental." Answer. It does not follow, unless
you suppose that the church knows that she is assisted
no further : but if, being assisted only so far, she yet did
conceive by error her assistance absolute and unlimited,
or if, knowing her assistance restrained to fundamentals,
she yet conceived by error that she should be guarded
from proposing any thing but what was fundamental,
then the consequence is apparently false. But "at
least she cannot be certain that she cannot err, and
therefore cannot be excused from headlong and perni-
cious temerity in proposing points not fundamental to
be believed by Christians as matters of faith." Answer.
Neither is this deduction worth any thing, unless it be
understood of such unfundamental points as she is not
warranted to propose by evident text of scripture. In-
deed, if she propose such, as matters of faith certainly
true, she may well be questioned. Quo warranto ? she

33S Points rightly distinguished

p. I. CH. III.

builds without a foundation, and says, Thus saith the
Lord, when the Lord doth not say so : which cannot
be excused from rashness and high presumption ; such
a presumption as an ambassador should commit who
should say in his master's name that for which he hath
no commission; of the same nature, I say, but of a
higher strain, as much as the King of heaven is
greater than any earthly king. But though she may
err in some points not fundamental, yet may she have
certainty enough in proposing others ; as for example,
these : that Abraham begat Isaac — that St. Paul had a
cloke — that Timothy was sick ; because these, though
not fundamental, i. e. not essential parts of Christianity,
yet are evidently and undeniably set down in scripture,
and consequently may be, without all rashness, pro-
posed by the church as certain Divine revelations.
Neither is your argument concluding when you say,
" If in such things she may be deceived, she must be
always uncertain of all such things ;" for my sense
may sometimes possibly deceive me, yet I am certain
enough that I see what I see, and feel what I feel.
Our judges are not infallible in their judgments, yet
are they certain enough that they judge aright, and
that they proceed according to the evidence that is
given, when they condemn a thief or a murderer to the
gallows. A traveller is not always certain of his way,
but often mistaken ; and doth it therefore follow that
he can have no assurance that Charing-cross is his
right way from the Temple to Whitehall ? The ground
of your error here is your not distinguishing between
actual certainty and absolute infallibility. Geometri-
cians are not infallible in their own science ; yet they
are very certain of those things which they see demon-
strated : and carpenters are not infallible, yet certain of
the straightness of those things which agree with the

ANSWER, into Fundmnental and not Fwidamental. 333

rule and square. So, though the church be not infal-
libly certain that in all her definitions, whereof some are
about disputable and ambiguous matters, she shall pro-
ceed according to her rule ; yet being certain of the infal-
libility of her rule, and that in this or that thing she
doth manifestly proceed according to it, she may be cer-
tain of the truth of some particular decrees, and yet not
certain that she shall never decree but what is true.

27. Ad ^. 12. "' But if the church may err in points
not fundamental, she may err in proposing scripture,
and so we cannot be assured whether she have not been
deceived already." The church may err in her propo-
sition or custody of the canon of scripture, if you un-
derstand by the church any ^present church of one de-
nomination ; for example, the Roman, the Greek, or so.
Yet have we sufficient certainty of scripture, not from
the bare testimony of any present church, but from uni-
versal tradition, of which the testimony of any present
church is but a little part. So that here you fall into the
fallacy, a dicto secundum quid, ad dictum simpliciter.
For, in effect, this is the sense of your argument : Unless
the church be infallible, we can have no certainty of scrip-
ture from the authority of the church : therefore, unless
the church be infallible, we can have no certainty hereof
at all. As if a man should say. If the vintage of France
miscarry, we can have no wine from France ; therefore,
if that vintage miscarry, we can have no wine at all.
And for the incorruption of scripture, I know no other
rational assurance we can have of it than such as we
have of the incorruption of other ancient books, that is,
the consent of ancient copies : such I mean for the kind,
though it may be far greater for the degree of it.
And if the Spirit of God give any man any other
assurance hereof, this is not rational and discursive,
but supernatural and infused : an assurance it may be

334 Points rightly distinguished p. i. ch. tit.

to himself, but no argument to another. As for the
infallibility of the church, it is so far from being a
proof of the scripture's incorruption, that no proof can
be pretended for it but controverted places of scripture ;
which yet are as subject to corruption as any other,
and more likely to have been corrupted (if it had been
possible) than any other, and made to speak as they do,
for the advantage of those men, whose ambition it hath
been a long time to bring all under their authority.
Now then, if any man should prove the scriptures un-
corrupted, because the church says so, which is infal-
lible; I would demand again, touching this very thing.
That there is an infallible church, seeing it is not of
itself evident, how shall I be assured of it ? and what
can he answer, but that the scripture says so, in these
and these places ? Hereupon I would ask him, how
shall I be assured that the scriptures are incorrupted
in these places ; seeing it is possible, and not altogether
improbable, that these men, which desire to be thought
infallible, when they had the government of all things
in their own hands, may have altered them for their pur-
pose ? If to this he answer again, that the church is
infallible, and therefore cannot do so ; I hope it would
be apparent that he runs round in a circle, and proves
the scripture's incorruption by the church's infallibility,
and the church's infallibility by the scripture's incor-
ruption ; and that is, in effect, the church's infallibility
by the church's infallibility, and the scripture's incor-
ruption by the scripture's incorruption.

28. Now for your observation, that " some books
which were not always known to be canonical have
been afterwards received for such ; but never any book
or syllable defined for canonical was after questioned
or rejected for apocryphal :" I demand, touching the
first sort, whether they were commended to the church

ANSWER, into Fundamental and not Fundamental. 335

by the apostles as canonical or not? If not, seeing
the whole faith was preached by the apostles to the
church, and seeing, after the apostles, the church pre-
tends to no new revelations, how can it be an article
of faith to believe them canonical ? and how can you
pretend that your church, which makes this an article
of faith, is so assisted as not to propose any thing as a
Divine truth which is not revealed by God ? If they
were, how then is the church an infallible keeper of
the canon of the scripture, which hath suffered some
books of canonical scripture to be lost, and others to
lose for a long time their being canonical^ at least the
necessity of being so esteemed, and afterwards, as it
were by the law of postliminium, hath restored their
authority and canonicalness unto them ? If this was
delivered by the apostles to the church, the point was
sufficiently discussed ; and therefore your church's
omission to teach it for some ages as an article of
faith, nay, degrading it from the number of articles of
faith, and putting it among disputable problems, was
surely not very laudable. If it were not revealed by
God to the apostles, and by the apostles to the church,
then can it be no revelation, and therefore her pre-
sumption in proposing it as such is inexcusable.

29. And then for the other part of it, " that never
any book or syllable defined for canonical was after-
wards questioned or rejected for apocryphal :" cer-
tainly it is a bold asseveration, but extremely false.
For I demand, the Book of Ecclesiasticus and Wis-
dom, the Epistles of St. James and to the Hebrews,
were they by the apostles approved for canonical, or
no ? If not, with what face dare you approve them,
and yet pretend that all your doctrine is apostolical ;
especially, seeing it is evident that this point is not
deducible, by rational discourse, from any other de-

336 Points rightly distinguished p. i. ch. hi.

fined by them ? If they were approved by them, this,
I hope, was a sufficient definition ; and therefore you
were best rub your forehead hard, and say that these
books were never questioned. But if you do so, then
I shall be bold to ask you, what books you meant in
saying before, " some books, which were not always
known to be canonical, have been afterwards received?"
Then for the Book of Maccabees, I hope you will say
it was defined for canonical before St. Gregory's time ;
and yet he, (lib. 19. Moral, c. 13,) citing a testimony
out of it, prefaceth to it after this manner ; " Concern-
ing which matter we do not amiss if we produce a testi-
mony out of books, although not canonical, yet set
forth for the edification of the church ; for Eleazer,
in the Book of Maccabees," &c. : which, if it be not to
reject it from being canonical, is, without question, at
least to question it. Moreover, because you are so
punctual as to talk of words and syllables, I would
know whether before Sixtus Quintus's time your
church had a defined canon of scripture, or not ? If
not, then was your church surely a most vigilant
keeper of scripture, that for one thousand five hundred
years had not defined what was scripture and what
was not. If it had, then I demand, was it that set
forth by Sixtus ? or that set forth by Clement ? or a
third, different from both ? If it were that set forth
by Sixtus, then is it now condemned by Clement;
if that of Clement, it was condemned I say, but sure
you will say contradicted and questioned, by Sixtus ;
if different from both, then was it questioned and con-
demned by bothj and still lies under the condemnation.
But then, lastly, suppose it had been true, " that both
some book not known to be canonical had been re-
ceived, and that never any after receiving had been
questioned ; how had this been a sign that the church

ANSWER, into Fundamental and not Fundamental. 337

is infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost? In what
mood or figure would this conclusion follow out of
these premises ? Certainly, your flying to such poor
signs as these are, is to me a gx-eat sign that you labour
with penury of better arguments, and that thus to
catch at shadows and bulrushes is a shrewd sign of a
sinking cause.

30. Ad §. 13. We are told here, " that the general
promises of infallibility to the church must not be re-
strained only to points fundamental ; because then
the apostles' words and writings may also be restrain-
ed." The argument put in form, and made complete,
by supply of the concealed proposition, runs thus :
The infallibility promised to the present church of
any age, is as absolute and unlimited as that
promised to the apostles in their preaching and
writings :
But the apostles' infallibility is not to be limited to

fundamentals :
Therefore neither is the church's infallibility thus

to be limited. Or thus :

The apostles' infallibility in their preaching and

writing may be limited to fundamentals, as well

as the infallibility of the present church : but that

is not to be done : therefore this also is not to be

done.

Now to this argument, I answer, that, if by " may

be as well" in the major proposition, be understood

" may be as possibly," it is true, but impertinent. If

by it we understand, " may be as justly and rightly,"

it is very pertinent but very false. So that as Dr.

Potter " limits the infallibility of the present church

unto fundamentals, so another may limit the apostles

unto them also." He may do it de facto, but de jure

he cannot ; that may be done, and done lawfully ; this

CHILLINGWOETH, VOL. I. Z

338 Points rightly distinguished p. i. ch. hi.

also may be done, but not lawfully. That may be
done, and if it be done cannot be confuted : this also
may be done, but if it be done may easily be confuted.
It is done to our hand in this very paragraph, by five
words taken out of scripture : All scripture is di-
vinely inspired. Shew but as much for the church :
shew where it is written. That all the decrees of the
church are divinely inspired, and the controversy will
be at an end. Besides, there is not the same reason
for the church's absolute infallibility as for the apo-
stles' and scripture's. For if the church fall into error,
it may be reformed by comparing it with the rule of
the apostles' doctrine and scripture : but if the apostles
have erred in delivering the doctrine of Christianity,
to whom shall we have recourse for the discovering
and correcting their error? Again, there is not so
much strength required in the edifice as in the founda-
tion ; and if but wise men have the ordering of the
building, they will make it much a surer thing that
the foundation shall not fail the building, than that
the building shall not fall from the foundation. And
though the building be to be of brick or stone, and
perhaps of wood, yet it may be possibly they will have
a rock for their foundation, whose stability is a much
more indubitable thing than the adherence of the
structure to it. Now the apostles and prophets, and
canonical writers, are the foundation of the church,
according to that of St. Paul, huilt upon the founda-
tion of apostles and prophets ; therefore their stabi-
lity, in reason, ought to be greater than the church's,
which is built upon them. Again, a dependant infal-
libility (especially if the dependance be voluntary) can-
not be so certain as that on which it depends : but the
infallibility of the church depends upon the infalli-
bility of the apostles, as the straightness of the thing

ANSWER, into Fundamental and not Fundamental. 569

regulated upon the straightness of the rule ; and be-
sides, this dependance is voluntary ; for it is in the
power of the church to deviate from this rule ; being
nothing else but an aggregation of men, of which
every one hath freewill, and is subject to passions and
error: therefore the church's infallibility is not so
certain as that of the apostles.

31. Lastly, quid verba audiam, cum facta videam f
If you be so infallible as the apostles were, shew it as
the apostles did : Thej/ went forth (saith St. Mark)
and preached every where ^ the Lord working with
them, and confirming their words with signs follotv-
ing. It is impossible that God should lie, and that
the Eternal Truth should set his hand and seal to the
confirmation of a falsehood, or of such doctrine as is
partly true and partly false. The apostles' doctrine
was thus confirmed, therefore it was entirely true, and
in no part either false or uncertain. I say, in no part
of that which they delivered constantly as a certain
Divine truth, and -which had the attestation of Divine
miracles. For that the apostles themselves, even after
the sending of the Holy Ghost, were, and through
inadvertence or prejudice, continued for a time in
an error, repugnant to a revealed truth; it is, as I
have already noted, unanswerably evident from the
story of the Acts of the Apostles. For notwithstand-
ing our Saviour's express warrant and injunction, to go
and preach to all nations, yet until St. Peter was
better informed by a vision from heaven, and by the
conversion of Cornelius, both he and the rest of the
church held it unlawful for them to go or preach the
gospel to any but the Jews.

32. And for those things which they profess to
deliver as the dictates of human reason and prudence,
and not as Divine revelations, why we should take

z 2

340 ' Points rightly distinguished p. i. ch. hi,

them to be Divine revelations I see no reason ; nor
how we can do so, and not contradict the Apostles and
God himself. Therefore, when St. Paul says in the
1st Epistle to the Corinthians, vii. 12, To the rest
speak /, not the Lord; and again, Co7icerning vir-
gins I have no commandment of' the Lord, but I de-
liver my judgment : if we will pretend that the Lord
did certainly speak what St. Paul spake, and that his
judgment was God's commandment, shall we not plainly
contradict St. Paul and that Spirit by which he wrote?
which moved him to write, as in other places. Divine
revelations, which he certainly knew to be such ; so,
in this place, his own judgment touching some things
which God had not particularly revealed unto him.
And if Dr. Potter did speak to this purpose, " that the
apostles were infallible only in these things which
they spake of certain knowledge," I cannot see what
danger there were in saying so : yet the truth is, you
wrong Dr. Potter. It is not he, but Dr. Stapleton in
him, that speaks the words you cavil at. " Dr. Staple-
ton," saith he, p. 140, " is full and punctual to this
purpose :" then sets down the effect of his discourse,
1. 8. Princ. Doct. 4. c. 15, and in that the words you
cavil at; and then, p. 150, he shuts up this paragraph
with these words : " Thus Dr. Stapleton." So that, if
either the doctrine or the reason be not good. Dr. Sta-
pleton, not Dr. Potter, is to answer for it.

33. Neither do Dr. Potter's ensuing words " limit
the apostles' infallibility to truths absolutely necessary
to salvation," if you read them with any candour ; for
it is evident he grants the " church infallible in truth
absolutely necessary ;" and as evident, that he "ascribes
to the apostles the Spirit's guidance, and consequently
infallibility, in a more high and absolute manner than
any since them." From whence thus I argue : he

ANSWER, into Fundamental and not Fundamental. 341

that grants the church infallible in fundamentals, and
ascribes to the apostles the infallible guidance of the
Spirit in a more high and absolute manner than to any
since them, limits not the apostles' infallibility to fun-
damentals : but Dr. Potter granjts to the church such
a limited infallibility, and ascribes to the apostles "the
Spirit's infallible guidance in a more high and absolute
manner ;" therefore he limits not the apostles' infalli-
bility to fundamentals. I once knew a man out of
courtesy help a lame dog over a stile, and he for re-
quital bit him by the fingers : just so you serve Dr.
Potter. He out of courtesy grants you that those
words, The Spirit shall lead you into all truth, and
shall abide with you for ever, though in their high
and most absolute sense they agree only to the apostles,
yet in a conditional, limited, moderate, secondary sense,
they may be understood of the church ; but says, that
if they be understood of the church, " all must not be
simply «//," no, nor so large an all as the apostles' ally
but " all necessary to salvation." And you, to requite
his courtesy in granting you thus much, cavil at him,
as if he had prescribed these bounds to the apostles
also, as well as the present church. Whereas he hath
explained himself to the contrary, both in the clause
aforementioned, " the apostles who had the Spirit's
guidance in a more high and absolute manner than
any since them ;" and in these words ensuing, " where-
of the church is simply ignorant ;" and again, "where-
with the church is not acquainted." But most clearly
in those, which, being most incompatible to the apo-
stles, you with an "&c.," I cannot but fear craftily^
have concealed : " How many obscure texts of scrip-
ture which she understands not ? How many school-
questions which she hath not, haply cannot determine?
And for matters of fact, it is apparent that the church

z 3

S42 Points rightly distinguished p. i. ch. hi.

may err ;" and then concludes, that " we must under-
stand by all truths, not simply all, but" (if you con-
ceive the words as spoken of the church) "all truth
absolutely necessary to salvation ;" and yet, beyond all
this, the negative part of his answer agrees very well
to the apostles themselves ; for that all which they
were led unto, was not simply all, otherwise St. Paul
erred in saying, We know in part ; but such an all as
was requisite to make them the church's foundations.
Now such they could not be, without freedom from
error in all those things which they delivered con-
stantly as certain revealed truths. For if we once
suppose they may have erred in some things of this
nature, it will be utterly undiscernible what they have
erred in, and what they have not. Whereas, though
we suppose the church hath erred in some things, yet
we have means to know what she hath erred in, and
what she hath not ; I mean, by comparing the doctrine
of the present church with the doctrine of the primi-
tive church delivered in scripture. But then, last of
all, suppose the doctor had said (which I know he
never intended) that this promise, in this place made
to the apostles, was to be understood only of truths
absolutely necessary to salvation ; is it consequent that
he makes their preaching and writing not infallible in
points not fundamental ? Do you not blush for shame
at this sophistry ? The doctor says, no more was
promised in this place ; therefore he says no more was
promised ! Are there not other places besides this ? And
may not that be promised in other places which is not
promised in this ?

34. " But if the apostles were infallible in all things
proposed by them as Divine truths, the like must be
affirmed of the church, because Dr. Potter teacheth the
said promise to be verified in the church." True, he

ANSWER, into Fundamental and not Fundamental, 843

doth so, but not in so absolute a manner. Now what
is opposed to absolute, but limited or restrained f To
the apostles then it was made, and to them only, yet
the words are true of the church. And this very pro-
mise might have been made to it, though here it is
not. They agree to the apostles in a higher, to the
church in a lower sense ; to the apostles in a more
absolute, to the church in a more limited sense. To
the apostles absolutely for the church's direction ; to
the church conditionally by adherence to that direc-
tion, and so far as she doth adhere to it. In a word,
the apostles were led into all truths by the Spirit, effi-
caciter: the church is led also into all truths by the
apostles' writings, sufficienter : so that the apostles and
the church may be fitly compared to the star and the
wise men. The star was directed by the finger of
God, and could not but go right to the place where
Christ was : but the wise men were led by the star to
Christ, led by it, I say, not efficaciter or irresistibili-
ter, but sufficienter; so that if they would, they might
follow it ; if they would not, they might choose. So
was it between the apostles' writing scriptures and the
church. They in their writings were infallibly as-
sisted to propose nothing as a Divine truth but what
was so : the church is also led into all truth, but it is
by the intervening of the apostles' writings : but it is
as the wise men were led by the star, or as a traveller
is directed by a Mercurial statue, or as a pilot by his
card and compass, led sufficiently, but not irresistibly ;
led as that she may follow, not so that she must. For,
seeing the church is a society of men, whereof every
one (according to the doctrine of the Romish church)
hath freewill in believing, it follows, that the whole
aggregate hath freewill in believing. And if any
man say, that at least it is morally impossible, that

z 4

844 Points rightly distinguished p. i. ch. hi.

of so many, whereof all may believe aright, not
any should do so; I answer, it is true, if they did
all give themselves any liberty of judgment. But if
all (as the case is here) captivate their understandings
to one of them, all are as likely to err as that one ;
and he more likely to err than any other, because he
may err, and thinks he cannot, and because he con-
ceives the Spirit absolutely promised to that succession
of bishops, of which many have been notoriously and
confessedly wicked men, men of the world : whereas
this Spirit is the Spirit of truths whom the world can-
not receive^ because It seeth him not, neither knoweth
him. Besides, let us suppose that neither in this nor
in any other place God hath promised any more unto
them, but to lead them into all truth necessary for
their own and other men's salvation : doth it therefore
follow that they were, de facto, led no further? God,
indeed, is obliged by his veracity to do all that he hath
promised, but is there any thing that binds him to do
any more ? May not he be better than his word, but
you will quarrel at him ? May not his bounty exceed
his promise ? And may not we have certainty enough
that ofttimes it doth so ? God at first did not promise
to Solomon, in his vision at Gibeon, any more than
what he asked, which was wisdom to govern his peo-
ple, and that he gave him. But yet, I hope, you will
not deny that we have certainty enough that he gave
him something which neither God had promised nor
he had asked. If you do, you contradict God himself:
for. Behold^ (saith God,) because thou hast asked this
thing, I have done according to thy word. Lo, I have
given thee a wise and an understanding heart ; so that
there was none like thee before thee, neither after
thee shall any arise like unto thee : and I have also
given thee that which thou hast not asked, both riches

ANSWER, into Fundamental and not Fundamental, 345

and honour, so that there shall not he any among the
kings like unto thee in all thy days. God, for aught
appears, never obliged himself by promise to shew
St. Paul those unspeakable mysteries which in the
third heaven he shewed unto him ; and yet, I hope,
we have certainty enough that he did so. God pro-
mises to those that seek his kingdom, and the right-
eousness thereof, that all things necessary shall be
added unto them ; and in rigour by his promise he is
obliged to do no more ; and if he give them necessaries
he hath discharged his obligation : shall we therefore
be so injurious to his bounty towards us, as to say it
is determined by the narrow bounds of mere neces-
sity? So, though God hath obliged himself by pro-
mise to give his apostles infallibility only in things
necessary to salvation ; nevertheless, it is utterly in-
consequent that he gave them no more, than by the
rigour of his promise he was engaged to do ; or that
we can have no assurance of any further assistance
than he gave them ; especially when he himself, both
by his word and by his works, hath assured us, that
he did assist them further. You see by this time that
your chain of " fearful consequences" (as you call
them) is turned to a rope of sand, and may easily be
avoided, without any flying to your imaginary infalli-
bility of the church in all her proposals.

35. Ad §. 14, 15. " Doubting of a book received
for canonical," may signify, either doubting whether it
be canonical, or, supposing it to be canonical, whether
it be true. If the former sense were yours, I must
then again distinguish of the term received ; for it may
signify, either received by some particular church, or
by the present church universal, or the church of all
ages. If you meant the word in either of the former
senses, that which you say is not true. A man may

S46 No Church of one Denomination infallible, p. i. ch. in.

justly and reasonably doubt of some texts, or some
book received by some particular church, or by the
universal church of this present time, whether it be
canonical or no ; and yet have just reason to believe,
and no reason to doubt, but that other books are ca-
nonical. As Eusebius, perhaps, had reason to doubt
of the Epistle of St. James ; the church of Rome, in
Hierom's time, of the Epistle to the Hebrews : and
yet they did not doubt of all the books of the canon,
nor had reason to do so. If by received you mean
" received by the church of all ages," I grant, he that
doubts of any one such book hath as much reason to
doubt of all. But yet here again I tell you, that it is
possible a man may doubt of one such book, and yet
not of all ; because it is possible men may do not ac-
cording to reason. If you meant your words in the
latter sense, then I confess he that believes such a book
to be canonical, i. e. the word of God, and yet (to
make an impossible supposition) believes it not to be
true, if he will do according to reason, must doubt of
all the rest, and believe none. For there being no
greater reason to believe any thing true, than because
God hath said it, nor no other reason to believe the
scripture to be true, but only because it is God's word ;
he that doubts of the truth of any thing said by God,
hath as much reason to believe nothing that he says ;
and therefore, if he will do according to reason, neither
must nor can believe any thing he says. And upon
this ground you conclude rightly, "that the infalli-
bility of true scripture must be universal, and not con-
fined to points fundamental."

36. And this reason why we should not refuse to
believe any part of scripture, upon pretence that the
matter of it is not fundamental, you confess to be con-
vincing. " But the same reason," you say, " is as con-

ANSWER. No church of one Denomination infallible. 347

vincing for the universal infallibility of the church :
for," say you, ** unless she be infallible in all things,
we cannot believe her in any one." But by this reason
your proselytes, knowing you are not infallible in all
things, must not nor cannot believe you in any thing ;
nay, you yourself must not believe yourself in any
thing, because you know that you are not infallible in
all things. Indeed, if you had said, " we could not
rationally believe her for her own sake, and upon her
own word and authority in any thing," I should will-
ingly grant the consequence. For an authority sub-
ject to error can be no firm or stable foundation of my
belief in any thing ; and if it were in any thing, then
this authority, being one and the same in all pro-
posals, I should have the same reason to believe all
that I have to believe one ; and therefore must either
do unreasonably, in believing any one thing, upon the
sole warrant of this authority ; or unreasonably, in
not believing all things equally warranted by it. Let
this therefore be granted ; and what will come of it ?
" why then," you say, " we cannot believe her in pro-
pounding canonical books." If you mean still (as you
must do, unless you play the sophister) " not upon her
own authority," I grant it: for we believe canonical
books not upon the " authority of the present church,"
but upon universal tradition. If you mean not at all,
and that with reason we cannot believe these books to
be canonical, which the church proposes, I deny it.
There is no more consequence in the argument than in
this : The Devil is not infallible ; therefore, if he says
there is one God, I cannot believe him. No geometri-
cian is infallible in all things, therefore not in these
things which he demonstrates. Mr. Knot is not in-
fallible in all things, therefore he may not believe that
he wrote a book, entitled " Charity Maintained."

348 No Church of one Denominatio7i infallible, p. i. ch. in.

37. But " though the reply be good, protestants
cannot make use of it, with any good coherence to this
distinction, and some other doctrines of theirs : be-
cause they pretend to be able to tell what points are
fundamental, and what not ; and therefore, though
they should believe scripture erroneous in others, yet
they might be sure it erred not in these." To this I
answer, That if, without dependance on scripture, they
did know what were fundamental, and what not, they
might possibly believe the scripture true in fundamen-
tals, and erroneous in other things. But seeing they
ground their belief, that '' such and such things only are
fundamental," only upon scripture, and go about to
prove their assertion true, only by scripture ; then
must they suppose the scripture true absolutely and in
all things, or else the scripture could not be a sufficient
warrant to them to believe this thing, that these only
points are fundamental. For who would not laugh at
them if they should argue thus : The scripture is true
in something ; the scripture says that these points only
are fundamental ; therefore this is true, that these only
are so? For every freshman in logic knows, that
from mere particulars nothing can be certainly con-
cluded. But, on the other side, this reason is firm and
demonstrative : The scripture is true in all things ; but
the scripture says, that these only points are the fun-
damentals of Christian religion ; therefore it is true
that these only are so. So that the knowledge of fun-
damentals, being itself drawn from scripture, is so far
from warranting us to believe the scripture is or may
be in part true and in part false, that itself can have
no foundation, but the universal truth of scripture.
For to be a fundamental truth presupposes to be a
truth ; now I cannot know any doctrine to be a Divine
and supernatural truth, or a true part of Christianity,

ANSWER. No Church of one Denomination infallible. 349

but only because the scripture says so, which is all
true ; therefore much more can I not know it to be a
fundamental truth.

38. Ad ^. 16. To this paragraph I answer: though,
the church being not infallible, I cannot believe her in
every thing she says ; yet I can and must believe her
in every thing she proves, either by scripture, reason,
or universal tradition, be it fundamental or be it not
fundamental. This, you say, "we cannot in points not
fundamental, because in such we believe she may err :"
but this, I know, we can ; because though we may err
in some things, yet she does not err in what she
proves, though it be not fundamental. Again, you say
" we cannot do it in fundamentals, because we must
know what points be fundamental before we go to
learn of her." Not so. But ^ [seeing faith comes by
hearing, and by hearing those who give testimony to
it, which none doth but the church, and the parts of
it] I must learn of the church, or of some part ^ of it,
or I cannot know any thing fundamental or not funda-
mental. For how can I come to know, that there was
such a man as Christ, that he taught such doctrine,
that he and his apostles did such miracles in confirma-
tion of it, that the scripture is God's word, unless I be
taught it ? So then the church is, though " not a certain
foundation and proof of my faith, yet a necessary in-
troduction to it."

39. But " the church's infallible direction extending
only to fundamentals, unless I know them before I go
to learn of her, 1 may be rather deluded than instruct-
ed by her." The reason and connexion of this conse-
quence, I fear, neither I nor you do well understand
And besides, I must tell you, you are too bold in

z What is within the crotchets is not in the Oxford edition.
a of the church Oxf.

350 No Church of one Denomination infallihle. p. i. ch.iii.

taking that which no man grants you, "that the
church is an infallible director in fundamentals." For
if she were so, then must we not only learn funda-
mentals of her, but also " learn of her what is fun-
damental, and take all for fundamental which she de-
livers to us as such." In the performance whereof, if
I knew any one church to be infallible, I would quick-
ly be of that church. But, good sir, you must needs
do us this favour, to be so acute as to distinguish be-
tween being " infallible in fundamentals," and being
^•' an infallible guide in fundamentals." That there
shall be always " a church infallible in fundamentals,"
we easily grant ; for it comes to no more but this,
" that there shall be always a church." But that there
shall be always such a church, which is an infallible
guide in fundamentals, this we deny. For this cannot
be without settling a known infallibility in some one
known society of Christians ; (as the Greek or the Ro-
man, or some other church ;) by adhering to which
guide, men might be guided to believe aright in all
fundamentals. A man that were destitute of all means
of communicating his thoughts to others, might yet^
in himself and to himself, be infallible, but he could
not be a guide to others. A man or a church that
were invisible, so that none could know how to repair
to it for direction, could not be an infallible guide, and
yet he might be in himself infallible. You see then
there is a wide difference between these two ; and
therefore I must beseech you not to confound them,
nor to take the one for the other.

40. But they that "know what points are funda-
mental, otherwise than by the church's authority, learn
not of the church." Yes, they may learn of the church
that the scripture is the word of God, and from the
scripture that such points are fundamental, others are

ANSWER. No Church of one Deiimninatio7i infallible. 351

not so ; and consequently learn, even of the church,
even of your church, that all is not fundamental, nay,
all is not true, which the church teacheth to be so.
Neither do I see what hinders but a man may learn
of a church how to confute the errors of that church
which taught him, as well as of my master in physic
or the mathematics I may learn those rules and prin-
ciples by which I may confute my master's erroneous
conclusion.

41. But you ask, "if the church be not an infallible
teacher, why are we commanded to hear, to seek, to
obey the church?" I answer, for commands "to seek
the church," I have not yet met with any ; and, I be-
lieve, you, if you were to shew them, would be your-
self to seek. But yet if you could produce some such,
we might seek the church to many good purposes,
without supposing her " a guide infallible." And then
for " hearing and obeying the church," I would fain
know, whether none be heard and obeyed but those
that are infallible ; whether particular churches, go-
vernors, pastors, parents, be not to be heard and obey-
ed ? or whether all these be infallible ? I wonder you
will thrust upon us so often these worn-out objections,
without taking notice of their answers.

42. Your argument from St. Austin's first place is a
fallacy, a clicto secundum quid, ad dictum simpliciter :
if the " whole church practise any of these things,"
(" matters of order and decency," for such only there he
speaks of,) " to dispute whether that ought to be done,
is insolent madness." And from hence you infer, " if
the whole church practise any thing to dispute whe-
ther it ought to be done, is insolent madness ;" as if
there were no difference between " any thing" and " any
of these things ;" or as if I might not esteem it pride
and folly to contradict and disturb the church for mat-

352 No Church of one Denomination infallible, p. i. ch. hi.

ter of order, pertaining to the time and place and
other circumstances of God's worship ; and yet account
it neither pride nor folly, to go about to reform errors,
which the church has suffered to come in, and to vi-
tiate the very substance of God's worship. It was a
practice of the whole church in St. Austin's time, and
esteemed an apostolic tradition even by St. Austin
himself, " that the eucharist should be administered to
infants :" tell me, sir, I beseech you, had it been insolent
madness to dispute against this practice, or had it not ?
If it had, how insolent and mad are you, that have not
only disputed against it, but utterly abolished it ? If it
had not, then, as I say, you must understand St.
Austin's words, not simply of all things ; but (as indeed
he himself restrained them) of "these things," of "matter
of order, decency, and uniformity."

43. In the next place you tell us out of him, " that
that which hath been always kept, is most rightly es-
teemed to come from the apostles." Very right; and
what then? Therefore the church cannot err in defining
of controversies. Sir, I beseech you, when you write
again, do us the favour to write nothing but syllogisms :
for I find it still an extreme trouble to find out the con-
cealed propositions which are to connect the parts of
your enthymemes. As now, for example, I profess
unto you I am at my wit's end, and have done my best
endeavour, to find some glue, or sodder, or cement, or
chain, or thread, or any thing to tie tbis antecedent
and this consequent together, and at length am enforced
to give it over, and cannot do it.

44. But the doctrines, " that infants are to be bap-
tized, and those that are baptized by heretics are not to
be rebaptized, are neither of them to be proved by scrip-
ture : and yet, according to St. Austin, they are true doc-
trines, and we may be certain of them upon the authority

ANSWER. No Church of one Denomination infallible. 353

of the church which we could not be, unless the church
were infallible ; therefore the church is infallible." I an-
swer, that there is no repugnance, but we may be certain
enough of the universal traditions of the ancient church ;
such as in St. Austin's account these were which
here are spoken of, and yet not be certain enough of the
definitions of the present church, unless you can shew
(which I am sure you never can do) that the infallibi-
lity of the present church was always a tradition of the
ancient church. Now your main business is to prove
the present church infallible, not so much in consigning
ancient tradition, as in defining emergent controversies.
Again, it follows not, because the church's authority is
warrant enough for us to believe some doctrine, touch-
ing which the scripture is silent ; therefore it is war-
rant enough to believe these, to which the scripture
seems repugnant. Now the doctrines which St. Austin
received upon the church's authority are of the first
sort, the doctrines for which we deny your church's in-
fallibility are of the second. And therefore though the
church's authority might be strong enough to bear the
weight which St. Austin laid upon it, yet haply it may
not be strong enough to bear that which you lay upon it ;
though it may support some doctrines without scripture,
yet surely not against it. And last of all, to deal ingenu-
ously with you and the world, I am not such an idolater
of St. Austin as to think a thing proved suflftciently be-
cause he says it, nor that all his sentences are oracles ;
and particularly in this thing, that whatsoever was prac-
tised or held by the universal church of his time must
needs have come from the apostles ; though considering
the nearness of his time to the apostles, I think it a
good probable way, and therefore am apt enough to
follow it, when I see no reason to the contrary : yet, I
profess, I must have better satisfaction, before I can in-

CHILLINGWORTH, VOL. I. A a

854 No Church of one Denomination infallible, p. i. ch. hi.

duce myself to hold it certain and infallible. And this,
not because popery would come in at this door, as some
have vainly feared, but because by the church univer-
sal of some time, and the church universal of other
times, I see plain contradictions held and practised :
both which could not come from the apostles ; for then
the apostles had been teachers of falsehood. And there-
fore, the belief or practice of the present universal
church can be no infallible proof that the doctrine so
believed, or the custom so practised, came from the
apostles. I instance in the doctrine of the millenaries,
and the eucharist's necessity for infants : both which
doctrines have been taught by the consent of the emi-
nent fathers of some ages, without any opposition from
any of their contemporaries; and were delivered by
them, not as doctors, but as witnesses ; not as their
opinions, but apostolic traditions. And therefore mea-
suring the doctrine of the church by all the rules which
cardinal Perron gives us for that purpose, both these
doctrines must be acknowledged to have been the doc-
trines of the ancient church of some age or ages ; and
that the contrary doctrines were catholic at some other
time, I believe you will not think it needful for me to
prove. So that either I must say the apostles were
fountains of contradictious doctrines, or that being the
universal doctrine of this present church is no suffi-
cient proof that it came originally from the apostles.
Besides, who can warrant us that the universal tradi-
tions of the church were all apostolical ; seeing in that
famous place for traditions, in Tertullian^, Quicunque

^ De Corona Milit. c. 3. &c. Where having recounted sundry
unwritten traditions then observed by Christians, many whereof, by
the way, (notwithstanding the council of Trent's profession, ^' to re-
ceive them and the written word with like affection of piety,") are
now rejected and neglected by the church of Rome : for example,
immersion in baptism — tasting a, mixture of milk and honey presently

ANSWER. No Church of one Denomination infallible, 355

traditor, any author whatsoever is founder good enough
for them ? And who can secure us that human inventions,
and such as came a quocunque traditore, might not in
short time gain the reputation of apostolic; seeing the di-
rection then was^, Prcecepta majorum apostolicas tra-
ditiones quisque existimat ?

45. No less, you say, is St. Chrysostom " for the
infallible traditions of the church." But you were to
prove the church infallible, not in her traditions — (which
we willingly grant, if they be as universal as the tra-
dition of the undoubted books of scripture is, to be as
infallible as the scripture is; for neither doth being
written make the word of God the more infallible, nor
being unwritten make it the less infallible) — not there-
after— abstaining from baths for a week after — accounting it an im-
piety to pray kneeling on the Lord's day, or between Easter and
Pentecost : I say, having reckoned up these and other traditions in
chap. 3, he adds another in the fourth, of the veiling of women;
and then adds, *' Since I find no law for this, it follows, that tradi-
tion must have given this observation to custom, which shall gain
in time apostolical authority by the interpretation of the reason of
it. By these examples, therefore, it is declared, that the observing
of unwritten tradition, being confirmed by custom, may be defended ;
the perseverance of the observation being a good testimony of the
goodness of the tradition. Now custom, even in civil aifairs, where
a law is wanting, passeth for a law. Neither is it material, whether
It be grounded on scripture or reason, seeing reason is commenda-
tlon enough for a law. Moreover, if law be grounded on reason,
all that must be law which is so grounded, a quocunque productum,
wh6soever is the producer of it. Do ye think it is not lawful,
onmi Jideli, for every faithful man to conceive and constitute, pro-
vided he constitute only what is not repugnant to God's will, what
is conducible for discipline, and available to salvation, seeing the
Lord says. Why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right P" And
a little after, " This reason now demands saving the respect of the
tradition, a quocunque traditore censetur, nee aulhorem respiciens
sed authorkatem, ' from whatsoever tradition it comes, neitlier re-
gard the author, but the authority.'" c Hier.

Aa 2

S56 No Church of one Denommation infallible, p. i. ch. hi.

fore in her universal traditions were you to prove the
church infallible, but in all her decrees and definitions
of controversies. To this point, when you speak, you
shall have an answer ; but hitherto you do but wander.
46. But let us see what St. Chrysostom says :
" They" (the apostles) " delivered not all things in writ-
ing ;" (who denies it ?) " but many things also without
writing;" (who doubts of it?) "and these also are
worthy of belief." Yes, if we knew what they were.
But many things are worthy of belief which are not
necessary to be believed ; as, that Julius Caesar was
emperor of Rome is a thing worthy of belief, being
so well testified as it is, but yet it is not neces-
sary to be believed ; a man may be saved without
it. Those many works which our Saviour did, (which
St. John supposes would not have been contained in a
world of books,) if they had been written, or if God,
by some other means, had preserved the knowledge of
them, had been as worthy to be believed, and as neces-
sary, as those that are written. But to shew you how
much a more faithful keeper records are than report,
those few that were written are preserved and believed ;
those infinitely more, that were not written, are all lost
and vanished out of the memory of men. And seeing
God in his providence hath not thought fit to pre-
serve the memory of them, he hath freed us from
the obligation of believing them : for every obliga-
tion cease th, when it becomes impossible. Who can
doubt but the primitive Christians, to whom the epi-
stles of the apostles were written, either of themselves
understood or were instructed by the apostles, touching
the sense of the obscure places of them ? These tradi-
tive interpretations, had they been written and dis-
persed as the scriptures were, had without question
been preserved as the scriptures are. But to shew

ANSWER. No Church of one Denomination infallible. 357

how excellent a keeper of the tradition the church of
Rome hath been, or even the catholic church; for want
of writing they are all lost, nay, were all lost within a
few ages after Christ : so that if we consult the ancient
interpreters, we shall hardly find any two of them
agree about the sense of any one of them. Cardinal
Perron, in his Discourse of Traditions, having alleged
this place for them. Hold the traditions, &c. tells us,
" we must not answer, that St. Paul speaks here only
of such traditions which (though not in this Epistle to
Thessal. yet) were afterwards written, and in other books
of scripture ; because it is upon occasion of tradition
(touching the cause of the hinderance of the coming of
Antichrist) which was never written, that he lays this
injunction upon them to hold the traditions'' Well,
let us grant this argument good and concluding ; and
that the church of the Thessalonians, or the catholic
church, (for what St. Paul writ to one church he writ
to all,) v/ere to hold some unwritten traditions, and
among the rest, what was the cause of the hinderance
of the coming of Antichrist. But what if they did
not perform their duty in this point, but suffered this
tradition to be lost out of the memory of the church ?
Shall we not conclude, that seeing God would not
suffer any thing necessary to salvation to be lost, and
he hath suffered this tradition to be lost, therefore the
knowledge or belief of it, though it were a profitable
thing, yet it was not necessary ? I hope you will not
challenge such authority over us, as to oblige us to im-
possibilities, to do that which you cannot do yourselves.
It is therefore requisite that you make this command
possible to be obeyed, before you require obedience
unto it. Are you able then to instruct us so well, as
to be fit to say unto us, Now ye know what with-
holdeth ? Or do you yourselves know, that ye may in-

A a 3

S58 No Church of one Denomination infallible, p. i. ch. hi.

struct us ? Can ye, or dare you say, this or this was
this hinderance which St. Paul here meant, and all
men under pain of damnation are to believe it ? Or if
you cannot, (as I am certain you cannot,) go then, and
vaunt your church, for the only watchful, faithful, in-
fallible keeper of the apostles' traditions ; when here
this very tradition, which here in particular was de-
posited with the Thessalonians and the primitive
church, you have utterly lost it; so that there is no
footstep or print of it remaining, which with Divine
faith we may rely upon. Blessed therefore be the
goodness of God, who, seeing that what was not writ-
ten was in such danger to be lost, took order, that
what was necessary should be written ! St. Chrysostom's
counsel therefore, of "accounting the church's traditions
worthy of belief," we are willing to obey : and if you
can of any thing make it appear that it is tradition,
we will seek no further. But this we say withal, that
we are persuaded you cannot make this appear in any
thing, but only in the canon of scripture; and that
there is nothing now extant, and to be known by us,
which can put in so good plea to be the unwritten word
of God, as the unquestioned books of canonical scripture
to be the written word of God.

47. You conclude this paragraph with a sentence of
St. Austin, who says, *' The church doth not approve,
nor dissemble, nor do those things which are against
faith or good life :" and from hence you conclude,
" that it never has done so, nor ever can do so." But
though the argument hold in logic a nonposse, ad non
esse, yet I never heard that it would hold back again, a
non esse, ad non posse. *' The church cannotdo this, there-
fore it does not," follows with good consequence : but,
"The church doth not this, therefore it shall never do it,
nor can ever do it," this I believe will hardly follow.

ANSWER. No Church of one Denomination infallible. 359

In the epistle next before to the same Januarius, writ-
ing of the same matter, he hath these words : " It
remains, that the thing you inquire of must be of that
third kind of things, which are different in diverse
places. Let every one, therefore, do that which he finds
done in the church to which he comes ; for none of
them is against faith or good manners." And why do
you not infer from hence, that " no particular church
can bring up any custom that is against faith or good
manners ?" Certainly this consequence hath as good
reason for it as the former. If a man say of the
church of England, (what St. Austin of the church,)
that she neither approves nor dissembles, nor doth any
thing against faith or good manners, would you collect
presently, that this man did either make or think the
church of England infallible ? Furthermore, it is ob-
servable out of this and the former epistle, that this
church, which did not (as St. Austin, according to you,
thought) " approve or dissemble, or do any thing
against faith or good life," did not tolerate and dis-
semble vain superstitions and human presumptions,
and suffer all places to be full of them, and to be
exacted as, nay more severely than, the commandments
of God himself. This St. Austin himself professeth in
this very epistle. " This," saith he, " I do infinitely
grieve at, that many most wholesome precepts of the
Divine scripture are little regarded ; and in the mean-
time all is so full of so many presumptions, that he is
more grievously found fault with, who during his
octaves toucheth the earth with his naked foot, than he
that shall bury his soul in drunkenness." Of these, he
says, that " they were neither contained in scripture,
decreed by councils, nor corroborated by the custom of
the universal church : and though not against faith,
yet unprofitable burdens of Christian liberty, which

A a4

S60 No Church of one Denomination infallible, p. i. cH. iir.

made the condition of the Jews more tolerable than
that of Christians." And therefore he professeth of
them, Approhare non possum^ " I cannot approve them :"
and, Ubi facultas trihuitur, resecanda existimo ;
" I think they are to be cut off, wheresoever we have
power." Yet so deeply were they rooted^ and spread
so far, through the indiscreet devotion of the people,
always more prone to superstition than true piety, and
through the connivance of the governors, who should
have strangled them at their birth, that himself, though
he grieved at them, and could not allow them, yet for
fear of offence he durst not speak against them.
Malta hujusmodi, propter nonmdlarum vel sanctarum
vel turhulentarum personarum scandala, devitanda,
liberius impr^ohare non audeo : " many of these things,
for fear of scandalizing many holy persons, or provoking
those that are turbulent, I dare not freely disallow."
Nay, the catholic church itself did see, and dissemble,
and tolerate them ; for these are the things of which
he presently says after, " The church of God," [and
you will have him speak of the true catholic church,]
placed between chaff and tares, tolerates many things."
Which was directly against the command of the Holy
Spirit, given the church by St. Paul, to standfast i?i
that liberty wherewith Christ hath made herjree, and
not to suffer herself to be brought in bondage to these
servile burdens. Our Saviour tells the Scribes and
Pharisees, that in vain they worshipped God, teaching
for doctrines men's commandments : for that, laying
aside the commandments of God, they held the traditions
of men, as the washing of pots and cups, and many
other such like things. Certainly, that which St. Au-
gustin complains of as the general fault of Christians
of his time was parallel to this : Multa (saith he) quce
in divinis libris saluberrime prcecepta sunt, minus

ANSWER. No Church of one Denomination infallible. 361

curantur; this, I suppose, I may very well render in
our Saviour's words, The commandments of God are
laid aside ; and then, 7hm multis prcssumptionihus
sic plena sunt omnia, " All things, or all places, are so
full of so many presumptions, and those exacted with
such severity, nay, with tyranny, that he was more
severely censured who in the time of his octaves
touched the earth with his naked feet, than he which
drowned and buried his soul in drink." Certainly, if
this be not to teach for doctrines men's commandments,
I know not what is : and therefore these superstitious
Christians might be said to worship God in vain, as
well as the Scribes and Pharisees. And yet great
variety of superstitions of this kind were then already
spread over the church, being different in diverse places.
This is plain from these words of St. Austin ^con-
cerning them, Diversorum locorum diversis moribus
innumerahiliter variantur ; and apparent, because the
stream of them was grown so violent, that he durst not
oppose it ; Liherius improhare non audeo, " I dare not
freely speak against them." So that to say the catho-
lic church tolerated all this, and, for fear of offence,
durst not abrogate or condemn it, is to say (if we judge
rightly of it) that the church, with silence and con-
nivance, generally tolerated Christians to worship God
in vain. Now how this tolerating of universal super-
stition in the church can consist with the assistance
and direction of God's omnipotent Spirit to guard it
from superstition, and with the accomplishment of that
pretended prophecy of the church, / have set watchmen
upon thy walls, O Jerusalem, which shall never hold
their peace day nor night ; besides, how these super-
stitions, being thus nourished, cherished, and strength-
ened by the practice of the most, and urged with great
d of them Oxf.

362 i\^o Church of one Denominatio7i infallible, p.

I. CH. III.

violence upon others, as the commandments of God,
and but fearfully opposed or contradicted by any, might
in time take such deep root, and spread their branches
so far, as to pass for universal customs of the church,
he that does not see, sees nothing. Especially, con-
sidering the catching and contagious nature of this sin,
and how fast ill weeds spread, and how true and experi-
mented that rule is of the historian, Exenipla non con-
sistunt ubi incipiunt, sed quamlibet in tenuem recepta
tramitem latissime evagandi sibi faciunt potestatem.
Nay, that some such superstition had not already, even
in St. Austin's time, prevailed so far, as to be consue-
tudine universa ecclesice rohoratum, who can doubt that
considers, that the practice of communicating infants
had even then got the credit and authority, not only of
an universal custom, but also of an apostolic tradition ?
48. But (you will say) notwithstanding all this,
'' St. Austin here warrants us, that the church can never
either approve, or dissemble, or practise any thing
against faith or good life, and so long you may rest
securely upon it." Yea, but the same St. Austin tells
us, in the same place, that " the church may tolerate
human presumptions and vain superstitions, and those
urged more severely than the commandments of God :"
and whether superstition be a sin or no, I appeal to
our Saviour's words before cited, and to the consent
of your schoolmen. Besides, if we consider it rightly,
we shall find, that the church is not truly said only to
tolerate these things, but rather that a part, and far
the lesser, tolerated and dissembled them in silence,
and a part, and a far greater, publicly avowed and
practised them, and urged them upon others with
great violence, and yet continued still a part of the
church. Now, why the whole church might not con-
tinue the church, and yet do so, as well as a part of

ANSWER. iVb Church of one Denomination infallible. 363

the church might continue a part of it, and yet do so,
I desire you to inform me.

49. But now, after all this ado, what if St. Austin
says not this which is pretended of the church ; viz.
" that she neither approves, nor dissembles, nor practises
any thing against faith or good life," but only of good
men in the church ; certainly, though some copies read
as you would have it, yet you should not have dis-
sembled that others « read the place otherwise ; viz.
Ecclesia multa tolerat ; et tamen qucB sunt contra

Jldem et bonam vitam, nee bonus approbat, &c. ; " The
church tolerates many things ; and yet what is against
faith or good life, a good man will neither approve, nor
dissemble, nor practise."

50. Ad ^. 17. That Abraham begat Isaac is a point
very far from being fundamental ; and yet I hope you
will grant that protestants, believing scripture to be
the word of God, may be certain enough of the truth
and certainty of it : for what if they say that the
catholic church, and much more themselves, may pos-
sibly err in some unfundamental points, is it therefore
consequent they can be certain of none such ? What if
a wiser man than I may mistake the sense of some
obscure place of Aristotle, may I not therefore, with-
out any arrogance or inconsequence, conceive myself
certain that I understand him in some plain places,
which carry their sense before them? And then for
points fundamental, to what purpose do you say, that
** we must first know what they be, before we can be
assured that we cannot err in understanding the scrip-
ture," when we pretend not at all to any assurance
that we cannot err, but only to a sufficient certainty
that we do not err, but rightly understand those things
that are plain, whether fundamental or not fundamen-
tal ; that God is, and is a rewarder of them that seek

364 No Church of 07ie Denomination infallible, p. i. ch.iii.

him ; that there is no salvation but by faith in Christ ;
that by ® repentance from dead works, and faith in Christ,
remission of sins may be obtained ; that there shall be
a resurrection of the body : these we conceive both true,
because the scripture says so, and truths fundamental,
because they are necessary parts of the gospel, whereof
our Saviour says. Qui non crediderit, damnahitur.
All which we either learn from scripture immediately,
or learn of those that learn it of scripture ; so that
neither learned nor unlearned pretend to know these
things independently of scripture. And therefore in
imputing this to us, you cannot excuse yourself from
having done us a palpable injury.

51. Ad §.18. And I urge you as mainly as you
urge Dr. Potter and other protestants, that you tell us
that all the traditions, and all the definitions of the
church are fundamental points, and we cannot wrest
from you " a list in particular of all such traditions
and definitions, without which no man can tell whe-
ther or no he err in points fundamental, and be capa-
ble of salvation ;" (for, I hope, erring in our fundamen-
tals is no more exclusive of salvation than erring in
yours ;) " and, which is most lamentable, instead of
giving us such a catalogue, you also fall to wrangle
among yourselves about the making of it ;" some of
you, as I have said above, holding some things to be
matters of faith, which others deny to be so.

52. Ad §.19. I answer, That these differences be-
tween protestants concerning errors damnable and not
damnable, truths fundamental and not fundamental,
may be easily reconciled. For either the error they
speak of " may be purely and simply involuntary," or
it may be in respect of the cause of it voluntary. If
the cause of it be some voluntary and avoidable

e repentance and faith in Christ Oxf.

ANSWER. No Church of one Denomination in fallible. 365

fault, the error is itself sinful, and consequently in its
own nature damnable ; as if, by negligence in seeking
the truth, by unwillingness to find it, by pride, by
obstinacy, by desiring that religion should be true
which suits best with my ends, by fear of men's ill
opinion, or any other worldly fear, or any other
worldly hope, I betray myself to any error contrary
to any Divine revealed truth, that error may be justly
styled a sin, and consequently of itself to such a one
damnable. But if I be guilty of none of these faults,
but be desirous to know the truth, and diligent in
seeking it, and advise not at all with flesh and blood
about the choice of my opinions, but only with God,
and that reason that he hath given me ; if I be thus
qualified, and yet through human infirmity fall into
error, that error cannot be damnable. Again, the
party erring may be conceived either to die with con-
trition, for all his sins known and unknown, or with-
out it ; if he die without it, this error in itself damna-
ble will be likewise so unto him : if he die with contri-
tion, (as his error can be no impediment but he may.)
his error, though in itself damnable, to him, according
to your doctrine, will not prove so. And therefore
some of those authors, whom you quote, speaking of
errors whereunto men were betrayed, or wherein they
were kept by their fault, or vice, or passion (as for the
most part men are) ; others, speaking of them as errors
simply and purely involuntary, and the eflfects of hu-
man infirmity ; some, as they were " retracted by con-
trition," (to use your own phrase,) others, as they were
not ; no marvel that they have passed upon them,
some a heavier, and some a milder, some an absolving,
and some a condemning sentence: the least of all
these errors which here you mention having malice
enough too frequently mixed with it to sink a man

S66 N'o Church of one Denomination infallihle, p. i. ch. hi.

deep enough into hell ; and the greatest of them all
being, according to your principles, either no fault at
all, or venial, where there is no malice of the will con-
joined with it. And if it be, yet, as the most malig-
nant poison will not poison him that receives with it a
more powerful antidote ; so I am confident your own
doctrine will force you to confess, that whosoever dies
with faith in Christ, and contrition for all sins, known
and unknown, (in which heap all his sinful errors must
be comprised,) can no more be hurt by any the most
malignant and pestilent error, than St. Paul by the
viper which he shook off into the fire. Now touching
the necessity of repentance from dead works, and
faith in Christ Jesus ^ the Son of God, and Saviour
of the world, they all agree; and therefore you cannot
deny but they agree about all that is simply neces-
sary. Moreover, though if they should go about to
choose out of scripture all these propositions and doc-
trines which integrate and make up the body of Chris-
tian religion, peradventure there would not be so exact
agreement amongst them as some say there was be-
tween the seventy interpreters in translating the Old
Testament ; yet thus far without controversy they do
all agree, that in the Bible all these things are con-
tained, and therefore, that whosoever doth truly and
sincerely believe the scripture must of necessity, either
in hypothesi or at least in thesi, either formally or
at least virtually, either explicitly or at least impli-
citly, either in act or at least in preparation of mind,
believe all things fundamental : it being not funda-
mental, nor required of Almighty God, to believe the
true sense of scripture in all places, but only that we
should endeavour to do so, and be prepared in mind to
do so, whensoever it shall be sufficiently propounded
to us. Suppose a man in some disease were prescribed

ANSWER. No Church of one Denomination infallible. 367

a medicine consisting of twenty ingredients, and he,
advising with physicians, should find them differing in
opinion ahout it ; some of them telling him that all the
ingredients were absolutely necessary ; some, that only
some of them were necessary, the rest only profitable,
and requisite ad melius esse; lastly, some, that some
only were necessary, some profitable, and the rest su-
perfluous, yet not hurtful ; yet all with one accord
agreeing in this, that " the whole receipt had in it all
things necessary" for the recovery of his health, and
that if he made use of it he should infallibly find it
successful ; what wise man would not think they
agreed sufficiently for his direction to the recovery of
health ? Just so these protestant doctors, with whose
discords you make such tragedies ; agreeing in thesi
thus far, that the " scripture evidently contains all
things necessary to salvation," both for matter of faith
and of practice ; and that whosoever believes it, and
endeavours to find the true sense of it, and to conform
his life unto it, shall certainly perform all things ne-
cessary to salvation, and undoubtedly be saved ; agree-
ing, I say, thus far, what matters it for the direction
of men to salvation, though they differ in opinion
touching what points are absolutely necessary and
what not? what errors absolutely repugnant to sal-
vation, and what not? Especially considering, that
although they differ about the question of the neces-
sity of these truths, yet for the most part they agree
in this, that truths they are, and profitable at least,
though not simply necessary. And though they differ
in the question, whether the contrary errors be de-
structive of salvation or no ; yet in this they consent,
that errors they are, and hurtful to religion, though
not destructive of salvation. Now that which God
requires of us is this, that we should believe the doc-

368 No Church of one Denomination infallible, p. i. ch. hi.

trine of the gospel to be truths ; not all necessary-
truths, for all are not so : and consequently, the re-
pugnant errors to be falsehoods ; yet not all such false-
hoods as unavoidably draw with them damnation upon
all that hold them ; for all do not so.

53. Yea, but you say, " it is very requisite we should
agree upon a particular catalogue of fundamental
points ; for without such a catalogue no man can be
assured whether or no he hath faith sufficient to sal-
vation." This I utterly deny, as a thing evidently false,
and I wonder you should content yourself magisteri-
ally to say so, without offering any proof of it. I
might much more justly think it enough barely to
deny it, without refutation, but I will not : thus there-
fore I argue against it :

Without being able to make a catalogue of funda-
mentals, I may be assured of the truth of this
assertion, if it be true, that " the scripture con-
tains all necessary points of faith," and know
that I believe explicitly all that is expressed in
scripture, and implicitly all that is contained in
them : now he that believes all this, must of
necessity believe all things necessary : therefore,
without being able to make a catalogue of funda-
mentals, I may be assured that I believe all
things necessary, and consequently that vl\y faith
is sufficient.
I said, of the truth of this assertion, " if it be true :"
because I will not here enter into the question of the
truth of it, it being sufficient for my present purpose
that it may be true, and may be believed without any
dependance upon a catalogue of fundamentals : and
therefore if this be all your reason to demand a par-
ticular catalogue of fundamentals, we cannot but think
your demand unreasonable. Especially having your-

ANSWER. No Church of one Denomination infallible. 369

self expressed the cause of the difficulty of it, and that
is, " because scripture doth deliver Divine truths, but
seldom qualifies them, or declares whether they be or
be not absolutely necessary to salvation." Yet not so
seldom but that out of it I could give you an abstract
of the essential parts of Christianity, if it were neces-
sary ; but I have shewed it not so by confuting your
reason pretended for the necessity of it, and at this
time I have no leisure to do you courtesies that are so
troublesome to myself. Yet thus much I will promise,
that when you deliver a " particular catalogue of your
church's proposals" with one hand, you shall receive a
particular catalogue of what I conceive fundamental
with the other : for as yet I see no such fair proceed-
ing as you talk of, nor any performance on your own
part of that which so clamorously you require on
ours. For as for the catalogue which here you have
given us, in saying, " you are obliged under pain of
damnation to believe whatsoever the catholic visible
church of Christ proposeth as revealed by Almighty
God," it is like a covey of one partridge, or a flock of
one sheep, or a fleet composed of one ship, or an army
of one man. The author of Charity Mistaken " de-
mands a particular catalogue of fundamental points ;"
and " we," say you, " again and again demand such a
catalogue." And surely if this one proposition, which
here you think to stop our mouths with, be a cata-
logue, yet at least such a catalogue it is not, and there-
fore as yet you have not performed what you require.
For if to set down such a proposition, wherein are
comprised all points taught by us to be necessary to
salvation, will serve you instead of a catalogue, you
shall have catalogues enough. As, we are obliged to
believe all, under pain of damnation, which God com-

CHILLINGWORTH, VOL. I. B b

S70 No Church of one Denomination infallible, p. i. ch. hi.

mands us to believe : there is one catalogue. We are
obliged, under pain of damnation, to believe all whereof
we may be sufficiently assured that Christ taught it
his apostles, his apostles the church : there is another.
We are obliged, under pain of damnation, to believe
God's word, and all contained in it, to be true : there is
a third. If these generalities will not satisfy you, but
you will be importuning us to tell you in particular
^what these doctrines are which Christ taught his
apostles and his apostles the church, what points are
contained in God's word ; then, I beseech you, do us
reason, and give us a particular and exact inventory!
of all your church-proposals, without leaving out or
adding any ; such a one which all the doctors of your
church will subscribe to ; and if you receive not then
a catalogue of fundamentals, I for my part will give
you leave to proclaim us bankrupts.

54. Besides this deceitful generality of your cata-
logue, (as you call it,) another main fault we find with
it, that it is extremely ambiguous ; and therefore, to
draw you out of the clouds, give me leave to propose
some questions to you concerning it. I would know,
therefore, whether by believing, you mean explicitly
or implicitly ? If you mean implicitly, I would know
whether your church's infallibility be, under pain of
damnation, to be believed explicitly or no ? Whether
any other point or points besides this be, under the
same penalty, to be believed explicitly or no ? and if
any, what they be ? I would know what you esteem
the proposal of the catholic visible church ? In par-
ticular, whether the decree of a pope ea^ cathedra, that
is, with an intent to oblige all Christians by it, be a

f what they are which Oxf.

ANSWER. No Church of one Denomination infallible. 371

sufficient and an obliging proposal? Whether men,
without danger of damnation, may examine such a
decree, and, if they think they have just cause, refuse
to obey it ? Whether the decree of a council without
the pope's confirmation be such an obliging proposal
or no ? Whether it be so in case there be no pope, or
in case it be doubtful who is pope ? Whether the de-
cree of a general council confirmed by the pope be
such a proposal, and whether he be a heretic that
thinks otherwise ? Whether the decree of a particular
council confirmed by the pope be such a proposal?
Whether the general uncondemned practice of the
church for some ages be such a sufficient proposition ?
Whether the consent of the most eminent fathers of
any age, agreeing in the affirmation of any doctrine,
not contradicted by any of their contemporaries, be a
sufficient proposition ? Whether the fathers' testifying
such or such a doctrine or practice to be a tradition,
or to be the doctrine or practice of the church, be a
sufficient assurance that it is so? Whether we be
bound, under pain of damnation, to believe every text
of the vulgar Bible, now authorized by the Roman
church, to be the true translation of the originals of
the prophets and evangelists and apostles, without any
the least alteration ? Whether they that lived when
the Bible of Sixtus was set forth were bound, under
pain of damnation, to believe the same of that ? and
if not of that, of what Bible they were bound to be-
lieve it ? Whether the catholic visible church be al-
ways that society of Christians which adheres to the
bishop of Rome ? Whether every Christian, that hath
ability and opportunity, be not bound to endeavour to
know explicitly the proposals of the church ? Whether
implicit faith in the church's veracity will not save
him that actually and explicitly disbelieves some doc-
trine of the church, not knowing it to be so; and

B b 2

372 iVo Church of one Denomination i'nfallihle, p. i. ch. hi.

actually believes some damnable heresy, as, that God
hath the shape of a man ? Whether an ignorant man
be bound to believe any point to be decreed by the
church, when his priest or ghostly father assures him
it is so ? Whether his ghostly father may not err in
telling him so, and whether any man can be obliged,
under pain of damnation, to believe an error ? Whether
he be bound to believe such a thing defined, when a
number of priests, perhaps ten or twenty, tell him it is
so ? and what assurance he can have, that they nei-
ther err nor deceive him in this matter? Why im-
plicit faith in Christ or the scriptures should not suffice
for a man's salvation, as well as implicit faith in the
church ? Whether, when you say " whatsoever the
church proposeth," you mean all that ever she pro-
posed, or that only which she now proposeth ; and
whether she now proposeth all that ever she did pro-
pose? Whether all the books of canonical scripture
were sufficiently declared to the church to be so, and
proposed as such by the apostles? and if not, from
whom the church had this declaration afterwards ? If
so, whether all men ever since the apostles' time were
bound, under pain of damnation, to believe the Epistle
of St. James and the Epistle to the Hebrews to be
canonical ? at least, not to disbelieve it, and believe the
contrary? Lastly, why it is not sufficient for any
man's salvation to use the best means he can to inform
his conscience, and to follow the direction of it ? To
all these demands when you have given fair and in-
genuous answers, you shall hear further from me.

55. Ad §.20. At the first entrance into this para-
graph, from our own doctrine, " that the church cannot
err in points necessary, it is concluded, if we are wise,
we must forsake it in nothing, lest we should forsake
it in something necessary." To which I answer, first, that
the supposition, as you understand it, is falsely imposed

ANSWER. A'o Church of one Denomination infallihle. 373

upon us, and, as we xmderstand it, will do you no service.
For when we say that there shall be a church always,
somewhere or other, unerring in fundamentals, our
meaning is but this, that there shall be always a church
to the very being whereof it is repugnant that it should
err in fundamentals ; for if it should do so, it would
want the very essence of a church, and therefore cease
to be a church. But we never annexed this privilege
to any one church of any one denomination, as the
Greek or the Roman church ; which if we had done,
and set up some settled certain society of Christians,
distinguishable from all others by adhering to such a
bishop for our guide in fundamentals, then indeed, and
then only, might you with some colour, though with
no certainty, have concluded that we could not in
wisdom " forsake this church in any point, for fear of
forsaking it in a necessary point." But now that we
say not this of any one determinate church, which
alone can perform the office of guide or director, but
indefinitely of the church, meaning no more but this,
" that there shall be always in some place or other
some church that errs not in fundamentals ;" will you
conclude from hence, that we cannot in wisdom forsake
this or that, the Roman or the Greek church, for fear
of erring in fundamentals ?

^^. Yea, you may say, (for I will make the best I
can of all your arguments,) " that this church, thus
unerring in fundamentals, when Luther arose, was by
our confession the Roman ; and therefore we ought
not in wisdom to have departed from it in any thing."
I answer, first, that we confess no such thing, that the
church of Rome was then this church, but only a part
of it, and that the most corrupted and most incorrigible.
Secondly, that if by adhering ^to that church we could
g to the church Oxf.
Bb3

374 No Church of one Denomination infallible, p. i. ch. hi.

have been thus far secured, this argument had some
show of reason. But seeing we are not warranted
thus much by any privilege of that church, that she
cannot err fundamentally, but only from scripture,
which assures us that she doth err very heinously, col-
lect our hope, that the truths she retains and the prac-
tice of them may prove an antidote to her against the
errors which she maintains in such persons as in sim-
plicity of heart follow this Absalom ; we should then
do against the light of our conscience, and so sin
damnably, if we should not abandon the profession of
her errors though not fundamental. Neither can we
thus conclude ; We may safely hold with the church of
Rome in all her points, for she cannot err damnably ;
for this is false, she may, though perhaps she doth
not : but rather thus ; These points of Christianity
which have in them the nature of antidotes against
the poison of all sins and errors, the church of Rome,
though otherwise much corrupted, still retains ; there-
fore we hope she errs not fundamentally, but still re-
mains a part of the church. But this can be no war-
rant to us to think with her in all things ; seeing the
very same scripture which puts us in hope she errs not
fundamentally, assures us that in many things, and
those of great moment, she errs very grievously. And
these errors, though to them that believe them we
hope they will not be pernicious, yet the professing of
them against conscience could not but bring to us
certain damnation. " As for the fear of departing from
some fundamental truths withal, while we depart from
her errors ;" haply it might work upon us, if adhering
to her might secure us from it, and if nothing else could:
but both these are false. For first, adhering to her in all
things cannot secure us from erring in fundamentals :
because though de facto we hope she doth not err, yet

ANSWER. No Churcfi of one Denomination infallible, 375

we know no privileges she hath but she may err in
them herself : and therefore we had need have better
security hereof than her bare authority. Then, se-
condly, without dependance on her at all, we may be
secured that we do not err fundamentally ; I mean, by
believing all things plainly set down in scripture,
wherein all necessary, and most things profitable, are
plainly delivered. Suppose I were travelling to Lon-
don, and knew two ways thither ; the one very safe
and convenient, the other very inconvenient and dan-
gerous, but yet a way to London ; and that I overtook
a passenger on the way, who himself believed, and
would fain persuade me, there vras no other way but
the worse, and would persuade me to accompany him
in it, because I confessed his way, though very ** incon-
venient and very dangerous, yet a way ; so that going
that way ^we might come to our journey's end by the
consent of both parties ; but he believed my way to
be none at all ; and therefore I might justly fear, lest
out of a desire of leaving the worst way I left the true
and the only way : if now I should not be more secure
upon my own knowledge than frighted by this fallacy,
would you not beg me for a fool ? Just so might you
think of us, if we would be frighted out of our own
knowledge by this bugbear. For the only and the
main reason why we believe you not to err in funda-
mentals, is your holding the doctrine of faith in Christ
and repentance: which knowing we hold as well as
you, notwithstanding our departure from you, we must
needs know that we do not err in fundamentals, as well
as we know that you Jin some sort do not err in funda-
mentals, and therefore cannot possibly fear the contrary.

^ inconvenient, yet a way Oxf.
* we could not fail of our journey's end Oxf.
J do not err in some fundamentals Oxf

B b 4

376 JVo Church of one Denomination infallible, p. i. ch. hi.

Yet let us be more liberal to you, and grant that which
can never be proved, that God had said in plain terms.
The church of Rome shall never destroy the founda-
tion, but withal had said, that it might and would lay
much hay and stubble upon it ; that you should never
hold any error destructive of salvation, but yet many
that were prejudicial to edification : I demand, might
we have dispensed with ourselves in the believing and
professing these errors in regard of the smallness of
them ? or, had it not been a damnable sin to do so,
though the errors in themselves were not damnable?
Had we not had as plain direction to depart from you
in some things profitable, as to adhere to you in things
necessary? In the beginning of your book, when it
was for your purpose to have it so, the greatness or
smallness of the matter was not considerable, the evi-
dence of the revelation was all in all. But here we
must err with you in small things, for fear of losing
your direction in greater ; and for fear of departing
too far from you, not go from you at all, even where
we see plainly that you have departed from the truth !
57. JBeyond all this, I say, that this which you say
" in wisdom we are to do," is not only unlawful, but, if
we will proceed according to reason, impossible ; I
mean, to adhere to you in all things, having no other
ground for it, but because you are (as we will now
suppose) infallible in some things, that is, in funda-
mentals. For whether by skill in architecture a large
structure may be supported by a narrow foundation, I
know not ; but sure I am, in reason, no conclusion can
be larger than the principles on which it is founded.
And, therefore, if I consider what I do, and be per-
suaded that your infallibility is but limited and par-
ticular and partial, my adherence upon this ground
cannot possibly be absolute and universal and total.

ANSWEE. No Church of one Denomination infallible, 377

I am confident, that should I meet with such a man
among you, (as I am well assured there be many,) that
would grant your church infallible only in fundamentals,
which what they are he knows not, and therefore upon
this only reason adheres to you in all things ; I say
that I am confident that it may be demonstrated, that
such a man adheres to you with a fiducial and certain
assent in nothing. To make this clear, (because at the
first hearing it may seem strange,) give me leave, good
sir, to suppose you the man, and to propose to you a
few questions, and to give for you such answers to
them as upon this ground you must of necessity give,
were you present with me. First, supposing you hold
your church infallible in fundamentals, obnoxious to
error in other things, and that you know not what
points are fundamental, I demand, C Why do you
believe the doctrine of transubstantiation ? K. Because
the church hath taught it, which is infallible. C What!
Infallible in all things, or only in fundamentals ? K. In
fundamentals only. C Then in other points she may
err ? K. She may. C. And do you know what points
are fundamental, what not ? K. No, and therefore I
believe her in all things, lest I should disbelieve her in
fundamentals. C. How know you then whether this
be a fundamental point or no ? K.l know not. C It
may be then (for aught you know) an unfundamental
point ? K. Yes, it may be so. C. And in these, you
said, the church may err ? K. Yes, I did so. C Then
possibly it may err in this ? K, It may do so. C Then
what certainty have you that it does not err in it?
K. None at all ; but upon this supposition, that this
is a fundamental. C. And this supposition you are
uncertain of? K, Yes, I told you so before. C. And
therefore you can have no certainty of that which
depends upon this uncertainty, saving only a suppositive

378 No Church of one Denomination infallible, p. i. ch. hi.

certainty, if it be a fundamental truth ; which is in
plain English to say, you are certain it is true, if it be
both true and necessary. Verily, sir, if you have no
better faith than this, you are no catholic. K. Good
words, I pray ! I am so, and, God willing, will be so.
C, You mean in outward profession and practice, but
in belief you are not, no more than a protestant is a
catholic. For every protestant yields sucfi a kind of
assent to all the proposals of the church ; for surely
they believe them true, if they be fundamental truths.
And therefore you must either believe the church in-
fallible in all her proposals, be they foundations or be
they superstructions, or'^ you must believe all funda-
mental which she proposes, or else you are no catholic.
K. But I have been taught, that " seeing I believed
the church infallible in points necessary, in wisdom I
was to believe her in every thing." C That was a
pretty plausible inducement to bring you hither ; but
now you are here, you must go further, and believe
her infallible in all things, or else you were as good go
back again, which will be a great disparagement to
you, and draw upon you both the bitter and im-
placable hatred of our part, and even with your own
the imputation of rashness and levity. You see, I hope,
by this time, that though a man did believe your church
infallible in fundamentals, yet he hath no reason to do
you the courtesy of believing all her proposals ; nay,
if he be ignorant what these fundamentals are, he hath
no certain ground to believe her, upon her authority,
in any thing. And whereas you say, it can be no im-
prudence to err with the church ; I say, it may be very
great imprudence, if the question be, whether we
should err with the present church, or hold true with
God Almighty.

^ or else you must Oxf.

ANSWER. No Church of one Denomination infallible. 379

58. " But we are, under pain of damnation, to
believe and obey her in greater things, and therefore
cannot in wisdom suspect her credit in matters of less
moment." Ans. I have told you already, that this is
falsely to suppose that we grant that in some certain
points some certain church is infallibly assisted, and
under pain of damnation to be obeyed : whereas all
that we say is this ; that, in some place or other, some
church there shall be, which shall retain all necessary
truths. Yet, if your supposition were true, I would
not grant your conclusion, but with this exception,
unless the matter were past suspicion, and apparently
certain, that in these things I cannot believe God and
believe the church. For then I hope you will grant,
that be the thing of never so little moment, were it,
for instance, but that St. Paul left his cloke at Troas,
yet I were not to gratify the church so far, as for her
sake to disbelieve what God himself hath revealed.

59. Whereas you say, " Since we are undoubtedly
obliged to believe her in fundamentals, and cannot
know precisely what those fundamentals be, we can-
not without hazard of our souls leave her in any point;"
I answer, first, that this argument proceeds upon the
same false ground with the former. And then, that I
have told you formerly, that you fear where no fear is ;
and though we know not precisely just how much is
fundamental, yet we know that the scripture contains
all fundamentals, and more too ; and therefore, that in
believing that, we believe all fundamentals, and more
too : and consequently, in departing from you can be
in no danger of departing from that which may prove
a fundamental truth : for we are well assured that
certain errors can never prove fundamental truths.

60. Whereas you add, that " that visible church,
which cannot err in fundamentals, propounds all her

380 No Church of one Denomination infallible, p. i. c hiii.

definitions without distinction to be believed under
anathemas ;" — Ans, Again you beg the question, sup-
posing untruly that there is any " that visible church ;"
I mean, any visible church of one denomination
which cannot err in points fundamental. Secondly,
proposing definitions to be believed under anathemas
is no good argument that the propounders conceive
themselves infallible ; but only that they conceive the
doctrine they condemn is evidently damnable. A plain
proof hereof is this, that particular councils, nay, par-
ticular men, have been very liberal of their anathemas
which yet were never conceived infallible, either by
others or themselves. If any man should now deny
Christ to be the Saviour of the world, or deny the
resurrection, I should make no great scruple of ana-
thematizing his doctrine, and yet am very far from
dreaming of infallibility.

61. And for the " visible church's holding it a point
necessary to salvation, that we believe she cannot err,"
I know no such tenet ; unless by the church you mean
the Roman church, which you have as much reason to
do, as that petty king in Afric hath to think himself
king of all the world. And therefore your telling us,
" If she speak true, what danger is it not to believe
her ? and if false, that it is not dangerous to believe
her," is somewhat like your pope's setting your lawyers
to dispute whether Constantine's donation were valid or
no ; whereas the matter of fact was the far greater ques-
tion, whether there were any such donation, or rather
when without question there was none such. That you
may not seem to delude us in like manner, make it appear
that the visible church doth hold so as you pretend; and
then, whether it be true or false, we will consider after-
wards : but, for the present, with this invisible tenet of
the visible church we will trouble ourselves no further.

ANSWER. No CImrch of one Denomination infallible, 381

62. The effect of the next argument is this : " I can-
not without grievous sin disohey the church, unless I
know she commands those things which are not in her
power to command ; and how far this power extends
none can better inform me than the church; there-
fore I am to obey, so far as the church requires my
obedience." I answer, first, that neither hath the
catholic church, but only a corrupt part of it, declared
herself, nor required our obedience, in the points con-
tested among us : this, therefore, is falsely and vainly
supposed here by you, being one of the greatest ques-
tions amongst us. Then, secondly, that God can bet-
ter inform us what are the limits of the church's power
than the church herself; that is, than the Roman
clergy, who being men subject to the same passions
with other men, why they should be thought the best
judges in their own cause, I do not well understand ;
but yet we oppose against them no human decisive
judges, nor any sect or person, but only God and his
word. And therefore it is in vain to say, that "in fol-
lowing her, you shall be sooner excused than in fol-
lowing any sect or man applying scriptures against her
doctrine," inasmuch as we never went about to arrogate
to ourselves that infallibility or absolute authority
which we take away from you. But if you would
have spoken to the purpose, you should have said, that
in following her you should sooner have been excused
than in cleaving to the scripture and to God himself.

63. Whereas, you say, " the fearful examples of in-
numerable persons, who, forsaking the church upon
pretence of her errors, have failed even in fundamental
points, ought to deter all Christians from opposing her
in any one doctrine or practice ;" this is just as if you
should say, Divers men have fallen into Scylla, with
going too far from Charybdis ; be sure, therefore, you

382 No Church of one Denomination infallible, p. i. ch. hi.

keep close to Charybdis : divers, leaving prodigality,
have fallen into covetousness ; therefore be you constant
to prodigality: many have fallen from worshipping God
perversely and foolishly, not to worship him at all ;
from worshipping many gods, to worshipping none;
this therefore ought to deter men from leaving super-
stition or idolatry, for fear of falling into atheism and
impiety. This is your counsel and sophistry : but God
says clean contrary, T'ake heed you swerve not either to
the right hand or to the left ; you must not do evil that
good may come thereon ; therefore, neither that you
may avoid a greater evil, you must not be obstinate in
a certain error^.for fear of an uncertain. What if some,
forsaking the church of Rome, have forsaken fundamen-
tal truths ? Was this because they forsook the church of
Rome? No sure, this is non causa pro causa; for else
all that have forsaken that church should have done so ;
which we say they have not : but because they went too
far from her, the golden mean, the narrow way, is hard to
be found, and hard to be kept ; hard, but not impossible ;
hard, but yet you must not please yourself out of it,
though you err on the right hand, though you offend on the
milder part ; for this is the only way that leads to life,
and Jew there he that find it. It is true, if we said
there was no danger in being of the Roman church,
and there were danger in leaving it, it were madness to
persuade any man to leave it. But we protest and
proclaim the contrary, and that we have very little
hope of their salvation, who, either out of negligence in
seeking the truth, or unwillingness to find it, live and
die in the errors and impieties of that church ; and
therefore cannot but conceive those fears to be most
foolish and ridiculous, which persuade men to be con-
stant in one way to hell, lest haply, if they leave it,
they should fall into another.

ANSWER. No Church of one Denomination infallible. 383

64. But "not only others, but even protestants
themselves, whose example ought most to move us,
pretending to reform the church, are come to affirm
that she perished for many ages, which Dr. Potter can-
not deny to be a fundamental error against the article
of the Creed, ' I believe the catholic church,' seeing he
affirms Donatists erred fundamentally in confining it to
Africa." To this I answer, first, that the error of the
Donatists was not, that they held it possible that some
or many or most parts of Christendom might fall
away from Christianity, and that the church may lose
much of her amplitude, and be contracted to a narrow
compass, in comparison of her former extent ; which is
proved not only possible, but certain, by irrefragable
experience : for who knows not that Gentilism and Ma-
humetism, man's wickedness deserving it, and God's
providence permitting it, have prevailed, to the utter
extirpation of Christianity, upon far the greater part
of the world ; and St. Austin, when he was out
of the heat of disputation, confesses the militant
church to be like the moon, sometimes increasing,
and sometimes decreasing. This, therefore, was no
error in the Donatists, that they held it possible that
the church, from a large extent, might be contract-
ed to a lesser ; nor that they held it possible to be
reduced to Africa: (for why not to Afric then, as
well as within these few ages you pretend it was to
Europe ?) but their error was, that they held de facto,
this was done when they had no just ground or reason
to do so ; and so, upon a vain pretence which they
could not justify, separated themselves from the com-
munion of all other parts of the church ; and that they
required it as a necessary condition to make a man a
member of the church, that he should be of their com-
munion, and divide himself from all other communions

384 No Church of one Denomination infallible, p. i. ch. in.

from which they were divided ; which was a condition
both unnecessary and unlawful to be required, and
therefore the exacting of it was directly opposite to the
church's Catholicism ; in the very same nature with
their errors who required circumcision, and the keeping
of the law of Moses, as necessary to salvation. For
whosoever requires harder or heavier conditions of men
than God requires of them, he it is that is properly an
enemy of the church's universality, by hindering either
men or countries from adjoining themselves to it ;
which, were it not for these unnecessary and therefore
unlawful conditions, in probability would have made
them members of it. And seeing the present church
of Rome persuades men they were as good (for any
hope of salvation they have) not to be Christians, as
not to be Roman catholics ; believe nothing at all, as
not believe all '"she imposes upon them ; be absolutely
out of the church's communion, as be out of "her com-
munion, or be in any other; whether **she be not
guilty of the same crime with the Donatists, and those
zealots of the Mosaical law, I leave it to the judgment
of those that understand reason : this is sufficient to
shew the vanity of this argument. But I add, more-
over, that you neither have named those protestants
who held the church to have perished for many ages,
who perhaps held not the destruction, but the corrup-
tion of the church ; not that the true church, but that
the pure church perished ; or rather, that the church
perished not from its life and existence, but from its
purity and integrity, or perhaps from its splendour and
visibility ; neither have you proved by any one reason,
but only affirmed it, to be a fundamental error, to hold
that the church militant may possibly be driven out of

™ which they impose Oxf. which she Lond.
^ their communion Ojcf. o they Oxf.

ANSWER. No Church of one Detiommation iiifallihle. 385

the world, and abolished for a time from the face of the
earth.

Q5, " But to accuse the church of any error in faith,
is to say, she lost all faith : for this is the doctrine of
catholic divines, that one error in faith destroys faith."
To which I answer, that to accuse the church of some
error in faith, is not to say she lost all faith : for this
is not the doctrine of all catholic divines ; but that he
which is an heretic in one article may have true faith
of other articles. And the contrary is only said, and
not shewed, in Charity Mistaken.

6Q. Ad J. 21. Dr. Potter says, " We may not de-
part from the church absolutely, and in all things;"
and from hence you conclude " therefore we may not
depart from it in any thing :" and this argument you
call a demonstration. But a fallacy, a dicto simpliciter
ad dictum secundum quid, was not used heretofore to
be called a demonstration. Dr. Potter says not that
you may not depart from any opinion or any practice
of the church ; for you tell us in this very place that
he says even the catholic may err; and every man
may lawfully depart from error. He only says, " you
may not cease to be of the church, nor depart from
those things which make it so to be ;" and from hence
you infer a necessity of forsaking it in nothing. Just
as if you should argue thus : You may not leave your
friend or brother, therefore you may not leave the vice
of your friend or the error of your brother. What he
says of the catholic church, p. 75, the same he extends
presently after ** to every true, though never so cor-
rupted part of it." And why do you not conclude
from hence, that no particular church (according to his
judgment) can fall into any error, and call this a de-
monstration too ? For as he says, p. 75, that " there
can be no just cause to depart from the whole church

CHILLINGWORTH, VOL. I. C C

386 No Church of one Denominatmi infallible, p. i. ch. hi.

of Christ, no more than from Christ himself;" so,
p. 76, he tells you, that " whosoever forsakes any one true
member of the body, forsakes the whole." So that what
he says of the one, he says of the other ; and tells you,
that neither universal nor particular church, so long as
they continue so, may be forsaken ; he means ab-
solutely, no more than Christ himself may be forsaken
absolutely : for the church is the body of Christ, and
whosoever forsakes either the body, or his coherence to
any one part of it, must forsake his subordination and
relation to the Head. Therefore, whosoever forsakes
the church, or any Christian, must forsake Christ him-
self.

67. But then he tells you plainly in the same place,
" that it may be lawful and necessary to depart from a
particular church in some doctrines and practices ;"
and this he would have said even of the catholic church,
if there had been occasion ; but there was none. For
there he was to declare and justify our departure, not
from the catholic church, but the Roman, which we
maintain to be a particular church. But in other
places you confess his doctrine to be, that even the ca-
tholic church may err in points not fundamental ;
which you do not pretend that he ever imputed to
Christ himself. And therefore you cannot with any
candour interpret his words as if he had said. We may
not forsake the church in any thing, no more than
Christ himself; but only thus, We may not cease to
be of the church, nor forsake it absolutely and totally,
no more than Christ himself; and thus we see some-
times a mountain may travail, and the production be a
mouse.

68. Ad §. 22. But " Dr. Potter either contradicts
himself, or else must grant the church infallible ; be-
cause he says, ' if we did not differ from the Roman,

ANSWER. No Church of one Denomination infallible. 387

we could not agree with the catholic ;' which saying
supposes the catholic church cannot err." Answ, This
argument, to give it the right name, is an obscure and
intricate nothing : and to make it appear so, let us
suppose, in contradiction to your supposition, either
that the catholic church may err, but doth not, but
that the Roman actually doth ; or that the catholic
church doth err in some few things, but that the
Roman errs in many more. And is it not apparent
in both these cases (which yet both suppose the
church's fallibility) a man may truly say. Unless I dis-
sent in some opinions from the Roman church, I can-
not agree with the catholic : either, therefore, you
must retract your imputation laid upon Dr. Potter, or
do that which you condemn in him, and be driven to
say, that the same man may hold some errors with
the church of Rome, and at the same time with the
catholic church not hold but condemn them. For
otherwise, in neither of these cases is it possible for
the same man, at the same time, to agree both with
the Roman and the catholic,

69. In all these texts of scripture, which are here
alleged in this last section of this chapter, or in any
one of them, or in any other, doth God say clearly and
plainly, "The bishop of Rome, and that society of
Christians which adheres to him, shall be ever the in-
fallible guide of faith ?" You will confess, I presume,
he doth not, and will pretend it was not necessary.
Yet if the king should tell us, the lord-keeper should
judge such and such causes ; but should either not tell
us at all, or tell us but doubtfully, who should be lord-
keeper, should we be any thing the nearer for him to
an end of contentions ? Nay rather, would not the dis-
sensions about the person, who it is, increase conten-
tions rather than end them ? Just so it would have

c c 2

388 No Church of one Denomination infallible, p. i. ch. in.

been, if God had appointed a church to be judge of
controversies, and had not told us which was that
church. Seeing therefore God doth nothing in vain,
and seeing it had been in vain to appoint a judge of
controversies, and not to tell us plainly who it is ; and
seeing, lastly, he hath not told us plainly, no not at
all who it is ; is it not evident he hath appointed
none ? Objection. But (you will say perhaps) if it be
granted once, that some church of one denomination is
the infallible guide of faith, it will be no difficult thing
to prove that yours is the church, seeing no other
church pretends to be so. Answ, Yes, the primitive
and the apostolic church pretends to be so. That as-
sures us, that the Spirit was promised and given unto
them, to lead them into all saving truth, that they
might lead others. Obj. But that church is not now
in the world, and how then can it pretend to be the
guide of faith ? Answ. It is now in the world suf-
ficient to be our guide ; not by the persons of those
men that were members of it, but by their writings,
which do plainly teach us what truth they were led
into, and so lead us into the same truth. Obj, But
these writings were the writings of some particular
men, and not of the church of those times ; how then
doth that church guide us by these writings ? Now
these places shew that a church is to be our guide,
therefore they cannot be so avoided. Answ, If you
regard the conception and production of these writ-
ings, they were the writings of particular men : but if
you regard the reception and approbation of them,
they may be well called the writings of the church, as
having the attestation of the church to have been writ-
ten by those that were inspired and directed by God :
as a statute, though penned by some one man, yet
being ratified by the parliament, is called the act, not

ANSWEE. No Church of 07ie Denomiimtion infallible, 389

of that man, but of the parliament. Ohj. But the
words seem clearly enough to prove, that the church,
the present church of every age, is universally infalli-
ble. Answ, For my part I know I am as willing and
desirous that the bishop or church of Rome should be
infallible, (provided I might know it,) as they are to
be so esteemed. But he that would not be deceived
must take heed, that he take not his desire that a thing
should be so, for a reason that it is so. For if you
look upon scripture through such spectacles as these,
they will appear to you of what colour pleases your
fancies best ; and will seem to say, not what they do
say, but what you would have them. As some say the
manna, wherewith the Israelites were fed in the wil-
derness, had in every man's mouth that very taste
which was most agreeable to his palate. For my part
I profess I have considered them a thousand times,
and have looked upon them (as they say) on both
sides, and yet to me they seem to say no such matter.

70. Not the first, for the church may err, and yet
the gates of hell not prevail against her. It may err,
and yet continue still a true church, and bring forth
children unto God, and send souls to heaven. And
therefore this can do you no service, without the plain
begging of the point in question, viz. that every error
is one of the gates of hell ; which we absolutely deny,
and therefore you are not to suppose, but prove it.
Neither is our denial without reason : for seeing you
do and must grant that a particular church may hold
some error, and yet be still a true member of the
church ; why may not the universal church hold the
same error, and yet remain a true universal ?

71. Not the second or third : for the Spirit of truth
may be with a man or a church for ever, and teach
him all truth, and yet he may fall into some error, if

c c 3

390 No Church of one Denomination infallible, p. i. ch. hi.

this all be not simply all, but all of some kind ; which
you confess to be so unquestioned and certain, that you
are offended with Dr. Potter for offering to prove it.
Secondly, he may fall into some error, even contrary to
the truth which is taught him, if it be taught him
" only sufficiently, and not irresistibly," so that he may
learn it if he will, not so that he must and shall whe-
ther he will or no. Now who can ascertain me that
the Spirit's teaching is not of this nature ? or how can
you possibly reconcile it with your doctrine of free-
will in believing, if it be not of this nature ? Besides,
the word in the original is oSrjyi^arei, which signifies, to
be a guide and director only, not to compel or necessi-
tate. Who knows not that a guide may set you in the
right way, and you may either negligently mistake, or
willingly leave it ? And to what purpose does God
complain so often and so earnestly of some that had
eyes to see, and would not see; that stopped their
ears, and closed their eyes, lest they should hear and
see ? of others, that would not understand, lest they
should do good: that the light shined, and the dark-
ness comprehended it not : that he came unto his own,
and his own received him not: that light came into
the world, and men loved darkness mo7^e than light:
to what purpose should he wonder so few believed his
report, and that to so few his arm was revealed: and
that when he comes he should find no faith upon earth,
if his outward teaching were not of this nature, that it
might be followed and might be resisted ? And if it
be, then God may teach, and the church not learn;
God may lead, and the church be refractory and not
follow. And, indeed, who can doubt, that hath not
his eyes veiled with prejudice, that God hath taught
the church of Rome plain enough in the Epistle to the
Corinthians, that all things in the church are to he

ANswEii. No Church of one Denomination infallihle. 391

done for edification ? and that in any public prayers
or thanksgiving, or hymns, or lessons of instruction, to
use a language which the assistants generally under-
stand not, is not for edification ? Though the church
of Rome will not learn this for fear of confessing an
error, and so overthrowing her authority ; yet the time
will come when it shall appear, that not only by scrip-
ture they were taught this sufficiently and commanded
to believe it, but by reason and common sense. And so
for the communion in both kinds, who can deny but
they are taught it by our Saviour (John vi.) in these
words, according to most of your own expositions : Un-
less you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his
hlood, you have no lifo in you, (If our Saviour speaks
there of the sacrament, as to them he doth, because
they conceive he doth so.) For though they may pre-
tend, that receiving in one kind they receive the blood
together with the body, yet they can with no face pre-
tend that they drink it ; and so obey not our Saviour's
injunction according to the letter, which yet they '^pro-
fess is literally always to be obeyed, unless some impiety
or some absurdity forces us to the contrary :" and they
are not yet arrived to that impudence to pretend, that
either there is impiety or absurdity in receiving the
communion in both kinds. This therefore they, if not
others, are plainly taught by our Saviour in this place ;
but by St. Paul all, without exception, when he says,
JLet a man examine himself and so let him eat of this
bread, and drink of this chalice. This a man that
is to examine himself, is every man that can do it ; as
is confessed on all hands. And therefore it is all one
as if he had said. Let every man examine himself, and
so let him eat of this bread and drink of this cup.
They which acknowledge St. Paul's Epistles and St.
John's Gospel to be the word of God, one would think

c c 4

392 No Church of one Denomination infallible, p. i. ch. hi.

should not deny but that they are taught these two
doctrines plain enough ; yet we see they neither do
nor will learn them. I conclude, therefore, that the
Spirit may very well teach the church, and yet the
church fall into and continue in error, by not regard-
ing what she is taught by the Spirit.

72. But all this I have spoken upon a supposition
only, and shewed unto you, that though these promises
had been made unto the present church of every age,
(I might have said, though they had been to the
church of Rome by name,) yet no certainty of her
universal infallibility could be built upon them. But
the plain truth is^ that these promises are vainly arro-
gated by you, and were never made to you, but to the
apostles only. I pray deal ingenuously, and tell me,
who were they of whom our Saviour says. These
things have I spoken unto you being present with
you. (chap. xiv. 25.) JBut the Comforter shall teach
you all things, and bring all things to your remem-
brance, whatsoever I have told you, (ver. 26.) Who
are they to whom he says, / go away, and come again
unto you ; and, / have told you before it come to pass,
(ver. 28, 29.) You have been with me from the begin-
ning, (chap. XV. 27.) And again ; These things I
have told you, that when the time shall come you may
remember that I told you of them : and these things
I said not unto you at the beginning, because I was
with you. (chap. xvi. 4.) And, Because I said these
things unto you, sorrow hath filled your hearts, (ver.
6.) Lastly, who are they of whom he saith, (ver. 12.)
/ have many things to say unto you, but you cannot
bear them now ^ Do not all these circumstances ap-
propriate this whole discourse of our Saviour to his
disciples that were then with him ; and, consequently,
restrain the promises of the Spirit of truth, which was

ANSWER. No Church of 07ie Denomination mfallible. 393

to lead them into all truth, to their persons only ? And
seeing it is so, is it not an impertinent arrogance and
presumption for you to lay claim unto them in the
behalf of your church ? Had Christ been present with
your church ? Did the Comforter bring these things
to the remembrance of your church, which Christ had
before taught, and she had forgotten? Was Christ
then departing from your church ? and did he tell of
his departure before it came to pass ? Was your church
with him from the beginning ? Was your church filled
with sorrow upon the mentioning of Christ's depar-
ture ? Or, lastly, did he, or could he have said to your
church, which then was not extant, / have yet many
things to say unto you, hut ye cannot hear them now ?
as he speaks in the 12th verse immediately before the
words by you quoted. And then goes on, Howheit
when the Spirit of truth is come, he will guide you
into all truth. Is it not the same you he speaks to in
the 13th verse and that he speaks to in the 14th?
and is it not apparent to any one that hath but half an
eye, that in the 13th verse he speaks only to them that
then were with him ? Besides, in the very text by you
alleged, there are things promised which your church
cannot with any modesty pretend to : for there it is
said, the Spirit of truth not only will guide you into
all truth, but also will shew you things to come. Now
your church (for aught I could ever understand) doth
not so much as pretend to the Spirit of prophecy and
knowledge of future events ; and therefore hath as
little cause to pretend to the former promise of being
led by the Spirit into all truth. And this is the reason
why both you in this place, and generally your writers
of controversies, when they entreat of this argument,
cite this text perpetually by halves ; there being in the
latter part of it a clear and convincing demonstration

394 No Church of one Denomination infallible, v. i. ch. hi.

that you have nothing to do with the former. Unless
you will say, which is most ridiculous, that when our
Saviour said. Re will teach you^ &c. and he ijvill shew
you, &C.5 he meant one you in the former clause and
another you in the latter.

73. Obj, But this is to confine God's Spirit to the
apostles only^ or to the disciples, that then were present
with him ; which is directly contrary to many places
of scripture. Answ. I confess, that to confine the Spi-
rit of God to those that were then present with Christ
is against scripture. But I hope it is easy to conceive
a difference between confining the Spirit of God to them
and confining the promises made in this place to them.
God may do many things which he doth not promise at
all ; much more, which he doth not promise in such or
such a place.

74. Ohj. But it is promised in the 14th chapter,
that this Spirit shall abide with them for ever : now
they in their persons were not to abide for ever, and
therefore the Spirit could not abide with them in their
persons for ever, seeing the coexistence of two things
supposes of necessity the existence of either. Therefore
the promise was not made to them only in their per-
sons, but by them to the church, which was to abide
for ever. — Aiisw. Your conclusion is, not to them only;
but your reason concludes either nothing at all, or that
this promise of abiding with them for ever was not
made to their persons at all ; or, if it were, that it was
not performed ; or, if you will not say (as I hope you
will not) that it was not performed, nor that it was
not made to their persons at all ; then must you grant
that the word^or ever is here used in a sense restrained,
and accommodated to the subject here entreated of;
and that it signifies, not eternally, without end of time,
but perpetually, without interruption, for the time

ANSWER. JVo Church of one Denomination infallible. 395

of their lives : so that the force and sense of the words
is, that they shall never want the Spirit's assistance in
the performance of their functions : and that the Spirit
would not (as Christ was to do) stay with them for a
time, and afterwards leave them, but would abide with
them, if they kept their station, unto the very end of
their lives, which is man's for ever. Neither is this
use of the word Jhr ever any thing strange, either in
our ordinary speech, wherein we use to say, " This is
mine for ever," " This* shall be yours for ever," without
ever dreaming of the eternity either of the thing or per-
sons. And then in scripture, it not only will bear,
but requires this sense very frequently ; as Exod. xxi.
6, Deut. XV. 17. His master shall hore his ear through
with an awl^ and he shall serve him for ever: Psalm lii.
9. I will praise thee for ever: Psalm Ixi. ^. I will abide
in thy tabernacle for ever: Psalm cxix. 111. Thy tes-
timonies have I taken as mine heritage for ever : and,
lastly, in the Epistle to Philemon, He therefore de-
parted from thee for a time, that thou shouldest receive
him for ever,

75. And thus, I presume, I have shewed sufficiently
that this for ever hinders not but that the promise may
be appropriated to the apostles, as by many other cir-
cumstances I have evinced it must be. But what now,
if the place produced by you, as a main pillar of your
church's infallibility, prove upon trial an engine to bat-
ter and overthrow it ? at least, (which is all one to my
purpose,) to take away all possibility of our assurance
of it ? This will seem strange news to you at first
hearing, and not far from a prodigy. And I confess,
as you here, in this place, and generally all your writ-
ers of controversy, by whom this text is urged, order
the matter, it is very much disabled to do any service
against you in this question : for with a bold sacrilege,

396 No Church of one Denommation infallible, p. i. ch. hi.

and horrid impiety, somewhat like Procrustes' cruelty,
you perpetually cut off the head and foot, the beginning
and the end of it ; and presenting your confidents (who
usually read no more of the Bible than is alleged by
you) only these words, / will ask my Father^ and he
shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide
with yoii for ever, even the Spirit of truth, conceal, in
the mean time, the words before and the words after ;
that so the promise of God's Spirit may seem to be ab-
solute, whereas it is indeed most clearly and expressly
conditional ; being both, in the words before, restrained
to those only that love God and keep his command-
ments, and, in the words after, flatly denied to all whom
the scripture styles by the name of the world; that is,
as the very antithesis gives us plainly to understand, to
all wicked and worldly men. Behold the place entire,
as it is set down in your own Bible : If ye love me, keep
my commandments ; and I will ask my Father, and
he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide
with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the
world cannot receive. Now from the place thus re-
stored and vindicated from your mutilation, thus I
argue against your pretence : We can have no certainty
of the infallibility of your church, but upon this sup-
position, that your popes are infallible in confirming
the decrees of general councils ; we can have no cer-
tainty hereof, but upon this supposition, that the Spi-
rit of truth is promised to ^them for ^ their direction in
this work : and of this again we can have no certainty
but upon supposal, that ^they perform the condition
whereunto the promise of the Spirit of truth is express-
ly limited, viz. that Hhey love God, and keep his com-
mandments: and of this, finally, not knowing the

P him Oxf. q his Oxf. ^ he Oxf « he Oxf.

ANSWER. No Church of one Denomination infallible. 397

pope's heart, we can have no certainty at all ; therefore,
from the first to the last, we can have no certainty at
all of your church's infallibility. This is my first ar-
gument. From this place another follows, which will
charge you as home as the former. If many of the
Roman see were such men as could not receive the
Spirit of truth, even men of the world, that is, worldly,
wicked, carnal, diabolical men ; then the Spirit of ti'uth
is not here promised, but flatly denied them ; and con-
sequently, we can have no certainty, neither of the de-
crees of councils, which the popes confirm, nor of the
church's infallibility, which is guided by these decrees ;
but many of the Roman see, even by the confession of
the most zealous defenders of it, were such men ; there-
fore the Spirit of truth is not here promised, but de-
nied them, and consequently we can have no certainty,
neither of the decrees which they confirm, nor of the
church's infallibility, which guides herself by these de-
crees.

76'. You may take as much time as you think fit to an-
swer these arguments. In the meanwhile I proceed to
the consideration of the next text alleged for this pur-
pose by you, out of St. Paul, 1st Epistle to Timothy,
where he saith, as you say, the church is the pillar and
ground of truth ; but the truth is, you are somewhat
too bold with St. Paul ; for he saith not in formal terms
what you make him say, the church is the pillar and
ground of truth ; neither is it certain that he means so;
for it is neither impossible nor improbable, that these
words, the pillar and ground of truth, may have refer-
ence, not to the church, but to Timothy, the sense of
the place, that thou mayest know how to behave thyself,
as a pillar and ground of' the truth, in the church of
God, which is the house of the living God; which
exposition offers no violence at all to the words, but

698 No Church of one Denomination infallible, p. i. ch. hi.

only supposes an ellipsis of the particle 0)9, in the Greek
very ordinary. Neither wants it some likelihood, that
St. Paul, comparing the church to a house, should here
exhort Timothy to carry himself as a pillar in that
house should do, according as he had given other prin-
cipal men in the church the name of pillars ; rather
than having called the church a house, to call it pre-
sently a pillar ; which may seem somewhat heteroge-
neous. Yet if you will needs have St, Paul refer this,
not to Timothy, but to the church, I. will not contend
about it any further, than to say, possibly it may be
otherwise. But then, secondly, I am to put you in
mind, that the church, which St. Paul here speaks of,
was that in which Timothy conversed, and that was a
particular church, and not the Roman ; and such you
will not have to be universally infallible.

77. Thirdly, If we grant you, out of courtesy, (for
nothing can enforce us to it,) that he both speaks of
the universal church, and says this of it ; then I am
to remember you, that many attributes in scripture are
not notes of performance but of duty, and teach us not
what the thing or person is of necessity, but what it
should be. Ye are the salt of the earth, saith our Sa-
viour to his disciples ; not that this quality was inse-
parable from their persons, but because it was their of-
fice to be so. For if they must have been so of neces-
sity, and could not have been otherwise, in vain had he
put them in fear of that which follows : If the salt have
lost his savour, wherewith shall it he salted"^ It is
thenceforth good Jhr nothing, hut to he cast forth, and
to he trodden underfoot. So the church may be by duty
the pillar and ground ; that is, the teacher of truth,
of all truth, not only necessary, but profitable to salva-
tion ; and yet she may neglect and violate this duty,
and be in fact the teacher of some error.

ANSWER. No Church of one Denomination infallible. 399

78. Fourthly and lastly, if we deal most liberally
with you, and grant that the apostle here speaks of
the catholic church, calls it the pillar and ground of
truth, and that not only because it should, but because
it always shall and will be so, yet after all this you
have done nothing ; your bridge is too short to bring
you to the bank where you would be, unless you can
shew, that by truth here is certainly meant, not only
all necessary to salvation, but all that is profitable,
absolutely and simply all. For that the true church
always shall be the maintainer and teacher of all ne-
cessary truth, you know we grant, and must grant ;
for it is of the essence of the church to be so ; and any
company of men were no more a church without it,
than any thing can be a man, and not be reasonable.
But as a man may be still a man, though he want a
hand or an eye, which yet are profitable parts ; so the
church may be still a church, though it be defective in
some profitable truth. And as a man may be a man
that hath some biles and botches on his body ; so the
church may be the church, though it have many cor-
ruptions both in doctrine and practice.

79. And thus you see we are at liberty from the
former places ; having shewed that the sense of them
either must or may be such as will do your cause no
service. But the last you suppose will be a Gordian
knot, and tie us fast enough : the words are. He gave
some, apostles; and some, prophets, &c., to the co?i-
summation of saints, to the work of the ministry, &:c.,
until we all meet iti the unity of faith, &c. : that we
he not hereafter children, wavering, and carried up
and down with every wind of doctrine. Out of which
words this is the only argument which you collect, or
I can collect for you :

There is no means to conserve unity of faith against

400 No Church of one Deiiomination infallible, p. i. ch. iij.

every wind of doctrine, unless it be a church uni-
versally infallible :
But it is impious to say there is no means to preserve

unity of faith against every wind of doctrine :
Therefore there must be a church universally infal-
lible.
Whereunto I answer, that your major is so far from
being confirmed, that it is plainly confuted by the place
alleged. For that tells us of another means for this
purpose, to wit, the apostles, and prophets, and evan-
gelists, and pastors, and doctors, which Christ gave
upon his ascension, and that their consummatiyig the
saints, doing the work of the ministry, and edifying
the body of Christ, was the means to bring those
(which are there spoken of, be they who they will) to
the unity qf faith, and to perfection in Christ, that
they might not be wavering, and carried about with
every wind of false doctrine. Now the apostles, and
prophets, and evangelists, and pastors, and doctors,
are not the present church ; therefore the church is
not the only means for this end, nor that which is here
spoken of.

80. Peradventure by he gave, you conceive it to
be understood, he jwomised that he woidd give unto
the world's end. But what reason have you for this
conceit ? Can you shew that the word thwKe hath this
signification in other places, and that it must have it
in this place? Or will not this interpretation drive
you presently to this blasphemous absurdity, that God
hath not performed his promise ? Unless you will say,
which for shame I think you will not^ that you have
now, and in all ages since Christ have had, apostles,
and prophets, and evangelists : for as for pastors and
doctors alone, they will not serve the turn. For if
God promised to give all these, then you must say he

ANSWER. No Church of one Denmnmut ion in fallible. 401

hath given all, or else that he hath broken his pro-
mise. Neither may you pretend, that the '^pastors and
doctors were the same with the apostles, and prophets,
and evangelists, and therefore having pastors and
doctors you have all." For it is apparent, that by
these names are denoted several orders of men, clearly
distinguished and diversified by the original texts ;
but much more plainly by your own translations, for
so you read it ; some, apostles ; and some, prophets ;
and other some, evangelists ; and other some, pastors
and doctors: and yet more plainly in the parallel
place, 1 Cor. xii, to which we are referred by your
vulgar translation, Gog? hath set some in the church, first
apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers; there-
fore this subterfuge is stopped against you. Ohj. But
how can they which died in the first age keep us in
the unity, and guard us from error, that live now,
perhaps, in the last ? This seems to be all one as if a
man should say, that Alexander or Julius Caesar should
quiet a mutiny in the king of Spain's army. Answ,
I hope you will grant, that Hippocrates, and Galen,
and Euclid, and Aristotle, and Sallust, and Caesar, and
Livy, were dead many ages since ; and yet that we are
now preserved from error by them, in a great part of
physic, of geometry, of logic, of the Roman story. But
what if these men had writ by Divine inspiration, and
writ complete bodies of the sciences they professed,
and writ them plainly and perspicuously ; you would
then have granted, I believe, that their works had been
sufficient to keep us from error and from dissension in
these matters. And why then should it be incongru-
ous to say, that the apostles, and prophets, and evan-
gelists, and pastors, and doctors, which Christ gave
upon his ascension, by their writings, which some of
them writ, but all approved, are even now sufficient

CHILLINGWORTH, VOL. I. 1) d

402 No Church of one Denomination infallible, p. i. ch. hi.

means to conserve us in unity of faith, and guard us
from error ? Especially seeing these writings are, by
the confession of all parts, true and Divine, and, as we
pretend and are ready to prove, contain a plain and
perfect rule of faith ; and, as the chiefest of you * ac-
knowledge, " contain immediately all the principal and
fundamental points of Christianity," referring us to
the church and tradition only for some minute parti-
cularities. But tell me, I pray, the bishops that com-
posed the decrees of the council of Trent, and the pope
that confirmed them, are they means to conserve you in
unity, and keep you from error, or are they not ? Per-
adventure you will say. Their decrees are, but not
their persons ; but you will not deny, I hope, that you
owe your unity and freedom from error to the persons
that made these decrees ; neither will you deny, that
the writings which they have left behind them are
sufficient for this purpose. And why may not then
the apostles' writings be as fit for such purpose as the
decrees of your doctors ? Surely their intent in writ-
ing was to conserve us in unity of faith, and to keep
us from error, and we are sure God spake in them.
But your doctors, from whence they are we are not so
certain. Was the Holy Ghost then unwilling or un-
able to direct them so, that their writing should be fit
and sufficient to attain the end they aimed at in writ-
ing ? for if he were both able and willing to do so,
then certainly he did do so. And then their writings
may be very sufficient means, if we would use them as
we should do, to preserve us in unity in all necessary
points of faith, and to guard us from all pernicious
error.

81. If yet you be not satisfied, but will still pretend,
that "all these words by you cited seem clearly enough

t Perron.

ANSWER. No Church of one Denommatio7i infallible. 403

to prove that the church is universally infallible, with-
out which unity of faith could not be conserved against
every wind of doctrine ;" I answer, that to you which
will not understand that there can be any means to
conserve the unity of faith, but only that which con-
serves your authority over the faithful, it is no marvel
that these words seem to prove that the church, nay
that your church, is universally infallible. But we
that have no such end, no such desires, but are willing
to leave all men to their liberty, provided they will not
improve it to a tyranny over others, we find it no dif-
ficulty to discern between dedit and promisit, he gave
at his ascension^ and he 'promised to the world's end.
Besides, though you whom it concerns may haply
flatter yourselves that you have not only pastors and
doctors, but prophets, and apostles, and evangelists,
and those distinct from the former, still in your
church ; yet we that are disinterested persons cannot
but smile at these strange imaginations. Lastly,
though you are apt to think yourselves such neces-
sary instruments for all good purposes, and that no-
thing can be well done unless you do it ; that no unity
or constancy in religion can be maintained, but in-
evitably Christendom must fall to ruin and confusion,
unless you support it ; yet we that are indifferent and
impartial, and well content that God should give us
his own favours by means of his own appointment, not
of our choosing, can easily collect out of these very
words, that not the infallibility of your's or of any
church, but the apostles, and prophets, and evan-
gelists. Sic, which Christ gave upon his ascension, were
designed by him for the compassing all these excellent
purposes, by their preaching while they lived, and by
their writings for ever. And if they fail hereof, the
reason is not any insufficiency or invalidity in the

Dd2!

404 A^o Church of 07ie Denomination infallible, p. i. ch. hi.

means, but the voluntary perverseness of the subjects
they have to deal vrith ; who, if they vi^ould be them-
selves, and be content that others should be, in the
choice of their religion, the servants of God and not of
men ; if they would allow, that the way to heaven is
not narrower now than Christ left it, his yoke no
heavier than he made it ; that the belief of no more
difficulties is required now to salvation than was in the
primitive church ; that no error is in itself destructive
and exclusive from salvation now, which was not then;
if instead of being zealous papists, earnest Calvinists,
rigid Lutherans, they would become themselves, and
be content that others should be, plain and honest
Christians ; if all men would believe the scripture, and
freeing themselves from prejudice and passion, would
sincerely endeavour to find the true sense of it, and
live according to it, and require no more of others but
to do so; nor denying their communion to any that
do so, would so order their public service of God, that
all which do so may without scruple, or hypocrisy, or
protestation against any part of it, join with them in
it ; who doth not see, that seeing (as we suppose here,
and shall prove hereafter) all necessary truths are
plainly and evidently set down in scripture, there
would of necessity be among all men, in all things
necessary, unity of opinion ? and, notwithstanding any
other differences that are or could be, unity of com-
munion, and charity, and mutual toleration ? by which
means all schism and heresy would be banished the
world, and those wretched contentions which now rend
and tear in pieces, not the coat, but the members and
bowels of Christ, which mutual pride, and tyranny, and
cursing, and killing, and damning, would fain make
immortal, should speedily receive a most blessed cata-
strophe. But of this hereafter, when we shall come to

ANSWER. N'o Church of one Denominatioji infallible. ¥i5

the question of schism, wherein I persuade myself, that
I shall plainly shew, that the most vehement accusers
are the greatest offenders, and that they are indeed, at
this time, the greatest schismatics who make the way
to heaven narrower, the yoke of Christ heavier, the
differences of faith greater, the conditions of ecclesias-
tical communion harder and stricter, than they were
made at the beginning by Christ and his apostles :
they who talk of unity, but aim at tyranny, and will
have peace with none but with their slaves and vassals.
In the meanwhile, though I have shewed how unity of
faith, and unity of charity too, may be preserved with-
out your church's infallibility, yet seeing you modestly
conclude from hence, not that your church is, but only
seems to be, universally infallible, meaning to yourself,
of which you are a better judge than I ; therefore I
willingly grant your conclusion, and proceed.

82. Whereas you say, that " Dr. Potter limits those
promises and privileges to fundamental points ;" the
truth is, with some of them he meddles not at all, nei-
ther doth his adversary give him occasion : not with
those out of the Epistle to Timothy, and to the Ephe-
sians. To the rest he gives other answer besides this.

83. But the words of scripture by you alleged " are
universal, and mention no such restraint to fundamen-
tals as Dr. Potter applies to them." I answer, that of
the five texts which you allege, four are indefinite, and
only one universal, and that, you confess, is to be re-
strained, and are offended with Dr. Potter for going
about to prove it. And whereas you say, they mention
no restraint, intimating that therefore they are not to
be restrained, I tell you, this is no good consequence ;
for it may appear out of the matter and circumstances
that they are to be understood in a restrained sense,
notwithstanding no restraint be mentioned. That

406 No Church of one Denomination infallible, p. i. ch. hi.

place quoted by St. Paul, and applied by him to our
Saviour, He hath put all things under his feet, men-
tions no exception ; yet St. Paul tells us, not only
that it is true or certain, but it is manifest that He is
excepted which did put all things under him.

84. But your interpretation is better than Dr. Potter's,
because it is literal. I answer, his is literal as well as
yours : and you are mistaken if you think a restrained
sense may not be a literal sense ; for to restrained,
literal is not opposed, but unlimited or absolute ; and
to literal is not opposed restrained, hut figurative .

85. Whereas you say, " Dr. Potter's brethren, re-
jecting his limitation, restrain the mentioned texts to
the apostles," implying hereby a contrariety between
them and him ; I answer, so doth Dr. Potter restrain
all of them which he speaks of, in the pages by you
quoted, to the apostles, in the direct and primary sense
of the words ; though he tells you there, the words in
a more restrained sense are true, being understood of
the church universal.

86. As for your pretence, that " to find the meaning
of those places, you confer divers texts, you consult
originals, you examine translations, and use all the
means by protestants appointed ;" I have told you
before, that all this is vain and hypocritical, if (as your
manner and your doctrine is) you give not yourselves
liberty of judgment in the use of these means ; if you
make not yourselves judges of, but only advocates for,
the doctrine of your church, refusing to see what these
means shew you, if it any way make against the doc-
trine of your church, though it be as clear as the light
at noon. Remove prejudice, even the balance, and
hold it even, make it indifferent to you which way you
go to heaven, so you go the true, which religion be
true, so you be of it, then use the means, and pray for

ANSWER. No Church of one Denoinination infallible, 407

God's assistance, and as sure as God is true, you shall
be led into all necessary truth.

87. Whereas you say, " you neither do, nor have
any possible means to agree, as long as you are left to
yourselves ;" the first is very true, that while you dif-
fer you do not agree. But for the second, that you
have no possible means of agreement, as long as you
are left to yourselves, i. e. to your own reasons and
judgment, this sure is very false, neither do you offer
any proof of it, unless you intend this, that you do not
agree, for a proof that you cannot ; which sure is no
good consequence, nor half so good as this which I
oppose against it. Dr. Potter and I, by the use of
these means by you mentioned, do agree, concerning
the sense of these places, therefore there is a possible
means of agreement ; and therefore, you also, if you
would use the same means, with the same minds,
might agree so far as it is necessary, and it is not
necessary that you should agree further. Or if there
be no possible means to agree about the sense of these
texts, whilst we are left to ourselves, then sure it is
impossible that we should agree in your sense of them,
which was, that the church is universally infallible.
For if it were possible for us to agree in this sense of
them, then it were possible for us to agree. And why
then said you of the selfsame texts but in the page next
before, " These words seem clearly enough to prove
that the church is universally infallible." A strange
forgetfulness, that the same man, almost in the same
breath, should say of the same words, they seem clearly
enough to prove such a conclusion true, and yet that
three indifferent men, all presumed to be lovers of
truth, and industrious searchers of it, should have no
possible means, while they follow their own reason, to
agree in the truth of tliis conclusion !

408 JVo Church of one Denomination infallible, p. i. ch. iit.

88. Whereas you say, that '' it were great impiety
to imagine that God, the lover of souls, hath left no
certain infallible means to decide both this and all
other differences arising about the interpretation of
scripture, or upon any other occasion ;" I desire you to
take heed you commit not an impiety in making more
impieties than God's commandments make. Certainly,
God is no way obliged, either by his promise or his love,
to give us all things that we may imagine would be
convenient for us, as formerly I have proved at large.
It is sufficient that he denies us nothing necessary to
salvation. Dens non deficit in necessariis, nee re-
dundat in superfluis : so Dr. Stapleton. But that the
ending of all controversies, or having a certain means
of ending them, is necessary to salvation, that you have
often said and supposed, but never proved, though it
be the main pillar of your whole discourse. So little
care you take how slight your foundations are, so your
building make a fair show : and as little care, how you
commit those faults yourself, which you condemn in
others. For you here charge them with great impiety,
who " imagine that God, the lover of souls, hath left
no infallible means to determine all differences arising
about the interpretation of scripture, or upon any other
occasion ;" and yet afterwards, being demanded by
Dr. Potter, " why the questions between the Jesuits
and Dominicans remain undetermined ;" you return
him this cross interrogatory, " Who hath assured you
that the point wherein these learned men differ is a
revealed truth, or capable of definition ; or is it not
rather by plain scripture indeterminable, or by any
rule of faith ?" 80 then when you say, " it were great
impiety to imagine that God hath not left infallible
means to decide all differences ;" I may answer. It
seems you do not believe yourself. For in this contro-

ANSWER. No Church of one Denomination infallible. 409

versy, which is of as high consequence as any can be,
you seem to be doubtful whether there be any means
to determine it. On the other side, when you ask
Dr. Potter, " who assured him that there is any means
to determine this controversy?" I answer for him,
that you have, in calling it "a great impiety to imagine
that there is not some infallible means to decide this
and all other differences arising about the interpretation
of scripture, or upon any other occasion." For what
trick you can devise, to shew that this difference be-
tween the Dominicans and Jesuits, which includes a
difference about the sense of many texts of scripture,
and many other matters of moment, was not included
under "this and all other differences," I cannot imagine.
Yet if you can find out any, thus much at least we shall
gain by it, " that general speeches are not always to
be understood generally, but sometimes with exceptions
and limitations."

89. But if there be any infallible means to decide
all differences, I beseech you name them. You say, "it
is to consult and hear God's visible church with sub-
missive acknowledgment of her infallibility." But sup-
pose the difference be, (as here it is,) whether your
church be infallible, what shall decide that? If you
would say, (as you should do,) scripture and reason,
then you foresee that you should be forced to grant,
that these are fit means to decide this controversy, and
therefore may be as fit to decide others. Therefore, to
avoid this, you run into a most ridiculous absurdity,
and tell us, that this difference also, whether the church
be infallible, as well as others, must be agreed by " a
submissive acknowledgment of the church's infalli-
bility ;" as if you should have said, " My brethren, I
perceive this is a great contention among you, whether
the Roman church be infallible ? If you will follow

CIULLINGWORTH, VOL. I. E 6

410 iVb Church of 07ie Denomination infallible, p. i. ch. hi.

my advice, I will shew you a ready means to end it ;
you must first agree that the Roman church is infallible,
and then your contention, whether the Roman church
be infallible, will quickly be at an end." Verily, a
most excellent advice, and most compendious way of
ending all controversies, even without troubling the
church to determine them ! For why may not you say
in all other differences as you have done in this ?
Agree that the pope is supreme head of the church ;
that the substance of the bread and wine in the Sacra-
ment is turned into the body and blood of Christ ;
that the communion is to be given to laymen but in
one kind ; that pictures may be worshipped ; that
saints are to be invocated ; and so in the rest : and
then your differences about the pope's supremacy,
transubstantiation, and all the rest, will speedily be
ended. If you say, the advice is good in this, but not
in other cases, I must request you not to expect always
to be believed upon your word, but to shew us some
reason, why any one thing, namely, the church's infal-
libility, is fit to prove itself; and any other thing, by
name the pope's supremacy, or transubstantiation, is
not as fit ? Or if for shame you will at length confess,
that the church's infallibility is not fit to decide this
difference, whether the church be infallible, then you
must confess it is not fit to decide all : unless you will
say it may be fit to decide all, and yet not fit to decide
this, or pretend that this is not comprehended under
all. Besides, if you grant that your church's infalli-
bility cannot possibly be well grounded upon, or decided
by itself, then having professed before, that " there is
no possible means besides this, for us to agree here-
upon," I hope you will give me leave to conclude, that
it is impossible upon good ground for us to agree that
the Roman church is infallible. For certainly, light

ANSWER. No Church of one Denomination infallible. 411

itself is not more clear than the evidence of this
syllogism :

If there be no other means to make men agree upon
your church's infallibility, but only this, and this
be no means ; then it is simply impossible for
men upon good grounds to agree that your church
is infallible :
But there is (as you have granted) no other possible
means to make men agree hereupon, but only a
submissive acknowledgment of her infallibility ;
and this is apparently no means :
Therefore it is simply impossible for men upon good

grounds to agree that your church is infallible.
90. Lastly, to the place of St. Austin, " vrherein vre
are advised to follow the way of catholic discipline,
which from Christ himself by the apostles hath come
down even to us, and from us shall descend to all pos-
terity ;" I answer, that the way which St. Austin
speaks of, and the way which you commend, being
diverse ways, and in many things clean contrary, we
cannot possibly follow them both ; and therefore, for
you to apply the same words to them is a vain equivo-
cation. Shew us any way, and do not say, but prove
it " to have come from Christ and his apostles down to
us," and we are ready to follow it. Neither do we
expect demonstration hereof, but such reasons as may
make this more probable than the contrary. But if
you bring in things into your now catholic discipline,
which Christians in St. Austin's time held abominable,
(as the picturing of God,) and which "you must, and
some of you do confess to have come into the church
seven hundred years after Christ : if you will bring in
things, as you have done the half communion, with a
non obstante, notwithstanding Christ's institution and

" you must confess &c. Oxf.

o

u
o .

If

a

University of Toronto
Library

DO NOT

REMOVE

THE

CARD

FROM

THIS

POCKET

Acme Library Card Pocket
LOWE-MARTIN CO. Limited

\